# Streetfighting vs Self-defense



## FearlessFreep (Oct 6, 2006)

Sometimes the subject comes up about what would work 'on the street' and I find myself asking "well, probably depends on your motivation and situation..."

By this I mean I'm wondering oif there are differnet kinds of street encounters and if they require a different response or mental attitude.

I think the idea of a 'street-fight', by which I mean two guys just going at each other with mutual intent to hurt/kill each other, is pretty rare (but I could be wrong).  However, I also think that this is different than 'self-defense', by which I mean that the other person is an aggressor (robbery, misunderstanding, whatever) and your motivation is not to 'beat them up' but simply 'get home in one piece'

So, when we talk about 'on the street', what are we talking about?  Beating the heck out of someone, or jus getting out alive?  Are there other distinctions?  Does that change what you do and how you approach the situation?


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 6, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> Sometimes the subject comes up about what would work 'on the street'



Sometimes?  Wow that is an underestimation.


----------



## Rook (Oct 6, 2006)

I see Streetfighting as an umbrella term that includes self-defense outside the training hall in addition to other fighting like gang warfare, policework, street duels, assaulting people, defending other people from assualt, bouncing and so forth.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Oct 6, 2006)

It's going to have different connotations for just about everybody.

Jeff


----------



## bydand (Oct 6, 2006)

I think another aspect of the question depends on where you are maturity wise as well.  20 or 25 years ago if I asked that question it very well could have meant going out on a Friday night and while not picking a fight, sure not trying to avoid one either, just to liven up a boring night. (Don't ask, just young and DUMB.)  I also wasn't training in any MA back then also, so that would have changed my perspective.  Now though, it is dealing with self-defense.  I think as you get older, the drive to "protect your honor" is replaced with the knowledge that the most important part of "honor" is being able to look at yourself in the mirror every morning without regreting what you did the night before.  I know that is true in my case.


----------



## exile (Oct 6, 2006)

bydand said:


> the most important part of "honor" is being able to look at yourself in the mirror every morning without regreting what you did the night before.



That is _really_ well put, Bydand.


----------



## matt.m (Oct 6, 2006)

I believe that the main difference between streetfighting and self defense are two totally scenerios all together.  Here is why: To me a streetfight is two or more people getting together to rumble, brawl, or whatever you want to call it.

Self defense is what someone does to protect themselves or others from harm, danger, etc. that sort of thing.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Oct 6, 2006)

If i am defending myself on the street, my intent may well be to maim or kill as my attacker.

I think self defense is a sliding scale.....you cant apply the same logic to every encounter.......otherwise we'd only need to learn how to do one thing.

I may have to brawl with my attacker.......i may have to struggle.....I dont want to do those things, but I am prepared to.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 6, 2006)

Continuing on the earlier point about "honor":

It is amazing how much the concept of "honor" gets so many MAists( and for that matter normal folk too) in very serious trouble after the fact concerning self defense--when threatened, such individuals *agree* to single combat. Legally and morally, that's wrong. You can't call it "self defense" if you have AGREED to hurt someone. Yet this is more common than it needs to be "Oh yeah, wanna go?" "Let's Go!" "Oh yeah?" "YEAH!".


Not gonna look good to witnesses/cops/jurors, it ain't.

Last time Someone threatened me asking idf I wanted to fight and was trying to start trouble with me, I remembered who was around me and said simply,"Do I wanna fight? No, I'm not interested in that. But if you try to hurt me, I'll make you stop no matter what that takes. Your call".


He woofed some more because he couldn't be seen to "back down" and lose his "respect" or "street cred",  but never DID go for it. (If he went for me, I pretty much already had him, since he , in the final analysis, chose NOT to make good his threat then it mattered not one whit to me what he said as I went back to work and continued with my life. Not long after he went to jail for a violence related charge Imagine , if you will, my shock and surprise...NOT).


----------



## bydand (Oct 6, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Continuing on the earlier point about "honor":
> 
> It is amazing how much the concept of "honor" gets so many MAists( and for that matter normal folk too) in very serious trouble after the fact concerning self defense--when threatened, such individuals *agree* to single combat. Legally and morally, that's wrong. You can't call it "self defense" if you have AGREED to hurt someone. Yet this is more common than it needs to be "Oh yeah, wanna go?" "Let's Go!" "Oh yeah?" "YEAH!".



That is not what I meant with my post at all.  After reading it again I can see where that might be infered, but let me clarify here.  What I meant was that the more mature one gets, the less that aspect is going to present its self.  Also I do not mean mature as a measure of years only.  I agree totally with what you say and that is what I intended, the whole concept of fighting for your honor is just crazy.  In the morning some drunks ramblings about your heritage is quite comical really, that is the point I was trying to make.


----------



## zDom (Oct 6, 2006)

Having been a victim of far too many assaults in the past, there is still part of me that wouldn't mind bringing down the thunder on someone who is out to beat up on somebody.

My response, on one occassion, was something like, 

"I don't want to fight, but if you swing I WILL hurt you."

On one particular occassion I was happened to be in a foul mood and was hoping, at the time, they WOULD.

Turns out, someone I had helped test to black belt was there and told them (there were three of them), 

"Dude -- that guy taught ME: if you think I'M bad, you definately DON'T want to mess with HIM! He WILL hurt you."

In retrospect, I'm glad it did NOT go down that way as I surely would have regretted hurting those guys, even if they did "deserve it" somewhat.

Nowadays, in light of that incident, I stay home if I'm in a foul mood


----------



## exile (Oct 6, 2006)

bydand said:


> That is not what I meant with my post at all.  After reading it again I can see where that might be infered, but let me clarify here.  What I meant was that the more mature one gets, the less that aspect is going to present its self.  Also I do not mean mature as a measure of years only.  I agree totally with what you say and that is what I intended, the whole concept of fighting for your honor is just crazy.



Yes, you guys are making different, complementary points, and I think that both of them are right on target. 



bydand said:


> In the morning some drunks ramblings about your heritage is quite comical really, that is the point I was trying to make.



It's weird, that, isn't it---why should it look so idiotically ludicrous in the morning when it seemed such a big angry wanna-choke-the-life-outta-them deal the night before? That's even if you yourself _hadn't_ had much alcohol---something about morning light makes it all look so damned silly.


----------



## Drac (Oct 6, 2006)

bydand said:


> I think as you get older, the drive to "protect your honor" is replaced with the knowledge that the most important part of "honor" is being able to look at yourself in the mirror every morning without regreting what you did the night before. I know that is true in my case.


 
Yes, with age come wisdom..Providing that you have learned from your earlier mistakes...Good post bydand..


----------



## Ybot (Oct 6, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> Sometimes the subject comes up about what would work 'on the street' and I find myself asking "well, probably depends on your motivation and situation..."
> 
> By this I mean I'm wondering oif there are differnet kinds of street encounters and if they require a different response or mental attitude.
> 
> ...


I have to say that what I consider a street fight in my personal experience is far more common than what I would consider a self defence situation.

People get in fights at bars and clubs all the time.  Not self defence in my oppinion.  People get in fights on the basketball courts.  Not self defence in my oppinion. etc.

I have personally witnessed these kinds of situations on numerous occasions, and have heard first hand accounts of these even more often.

Some one pisses some one off in traffic, they get out at a light and try to pull the guy from his car.  This is a self defence situation.  Someone runs up to your car at a stop sign or light, and trys to get in.  Self defence.  Some one is waiting at a light rail station and is attacked by a group of guys for his wallet and valuables.  Self defence.  A woman is sextually assalted.  Self defence.

These are Self defence situations I was either involved with, or have first hand account of.  These situations I have come across few and far between, and only one is my own (someone trying to get into my car at a light), and was easily countered (I locked the doors, and drove aways as soon as I could).

Anyway, it's just my personal experience that "street fights" are more common.

Anyway, in the event of a self defence situation, my goal is not just to get out alive,  but to do what ever I have to to get out with as little damage as possible.  The guy I knew who was jumped at the light rail train station got out alive without defending himself.  He got beat badly and his stuff taken.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Oct 6, 2006)

The vast majority of "street fights" are ego driven. The vast majority of self defense actions are the response to criminal activity.


----------



## exile (Oct 6, 2006)

hongkongfooey said:


> The vast majority of "street fights" are ego driven. The vast majority of self defense actions are the response to criminal activity.



That's it in a nutshell---great point, HKph.


----------



## zDom (Oct 6, 2006)

exile said:


> That's it in a nutshell---great point, HKph.



I agree. Well said.


----------



## exile (Oct 6, 2006)

zDom said:


> Having been a victim of far too many assaults in the past, there is still part of me that wouldn't mind bringing down the thunder on someone who is out to beat up on somebody.
> 
> My response, on one occassion, was something like,
> 
> "I don't want to fight, but if you swing I WILL hurt you."



zDom---it's weird, because at least once I have used almost _exactly_ that line---it's been a (great) while, it may well have been that very same line---and the effect was probably the same as with you: they *stopped*---because it was true, and they knew it. Sometimes, when you're in a certain frame of mind, you really do manage to convey to people that they are going to regret starting up with you and they had better back off, fast.



zDom said:


> On one particular occassion I was happened to be in a foul mood and was hoping, at the time, they WOULD.



And that's happened to me too---probably to a lot of us. In a sense, it's like you're thinking, you are such a jerk that it's justifiable for me to take out on you all my anger for the stupid, petty, pinheaded things that I've ever had to deal with. Go ahead, make my day. 



zDom said:


> Turns out, someone I had helped test to black belt was there and told them (there were three of them),
> 
> "Dude -- that guy taught ME: if you think I'M bad, you definately DON'T want to mess with HIM! He WILL hurt you."



Someone always has to be the killjoy, eh? :wink1: 



zDom said:


> In retrospect, I'm glad it did NOT go down that way as I surely would have regretted hurting those guys, even if they did "deserve it" somewhat.



Yup---it's the truth, especially in these litigous days, when burglars injured during B&E thefts because they slipped on the stairs can sue people whose house they broke into, with a fair chance of winning. On the external side, the fact that there were three of them and only one of you would have been offset by the fact that you were known to be an MA expert---a good lawyer would have been able to find this out in an afternoon. And on the internal side, you probably would have regretted hurting any of them---the fact that they were being jerks on that occasion didn't necessariy mean they deserved severe physical damage. 



zDom said:


> Nowadays, in light of that incident, I stay home if I'm in a foul mood



Yeah... the problem is, sometimes you're fine at the beginning of the evening and you only _get_ into a foul mood as a result of the obnoxioius behavior you encounter.

But on the whole, we probably find it easier to live with ourselves by couting to ten, or leaving and finding a bar which _isn't_ full of trolls...


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> Sometimes the subject comes up about what would work 'on the street' and I find myself asking "well, probably depends on your motivation and situation..."
> 
> By this I mean I'm wondering oif there are differnet kinds of street encounters and if they require a different response or mental attitude.
> 
> ...


 
IMO, a street fight is often involving a large group.  This can be similar to a gang fight.  The term 'on the street' is anything that happens outside of the ring, dojo, etc.  Depending on the situation, our reaction should vary from case to case.  

Mike


----------



## Adept (Oct 7, 2006)

Rook said:


> I see Streetfighting as an umbrella term that includes self-defense outside the training hall in addition to other fighting like gang warfare, policework, street duels, assaulting people, defending other people from assualt, bouncing and so forth.



Ditto this.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Oct 7, 2006)

Adept said:


> Ditto this.



So, if it's been established that there are different styles of an ecounter where you will or may end up using physical means...are the differences such that they change the techqniues and actions you would do, and how you train?


----------



## zDom (Oct 7, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> So, if it's been established that there are different styles of an ecounter where you will or may end up using physical means...are the differences such that they change the techqniues and actions you would do, and how you train?



As for selection of techniques, for me it depends on how threatened I feel, how concerned I am about getting hurt, how dangerous I believe the attacker to be.


----------



## Rook (Oct 7, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> So, if it's been established that there are different styles of an ecounter where you will or may end up using physical means...are the differences such that they change the techqniues and actions you would do, and how you train?


 
If the situation requires restraint, like policework or bouncing, than it may be necessary to train in techniques for bringing someone under control without hurting them.  Likewise, the police need to learn strategies for people trying to get away from them, whereas most of the rest of us don't.


----------



## exile (Oct 7, 2006)

Rook said:


> If the situation requires restraint, like policework or bouncing, than it may be necessary to train in techniques for bringing someone under control without hurting them.  Likewise, the police need to learn strategies for people trying to get away from them, whereas most of the rest of us don't.



Good point.  There are a lot of specialized tasks that LEOs carry out that civilians don't do. And I'd guess they're often subject to a lot more scrutiny about their use of force than civilians in self-defense situations are.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 7, 2006)

bydand said:


> That is not what I meant with my post at all. After reading it again I can see where that might be infered, but let me clarify here. What I meant was that the more mature one gets, the less that aspect is going to present its self. Also I do not mean mature as a measure of years only. I agree totally with what you say and that is what I intended, the whole concept of fighting for your honor is just crazy. In the morning some drunks ramblings about your heritage is quite comical really, that is the point I was trying to make.


 

Didn't claim that was what you meant, it just reminded me of this. Sorry for the mixup


----------



## Carol (Oct 7, 2006)

I see the situation a little bit differently.

Not long ago a person approached me at night, at a gas station while I was gassing up my car.  His intentions were not good.

There were a couple of things going through my mind.

_Migod, I'm going to first be using my skills in Podunk, New Hampshire._

_If the fellow gets any closer I'm going to yell "Fire" at the top of my lungs._

_If we come to blows, I think he's a small enough guy where I can resist him at least long enough to get in my truck and take off....but I really DO NOT want this dude touching me in any way shape or form._

_Dammit, I'm not packing anything.  I hope the Sharpie I was using is still in my back pocket._

_I REALLY need to scare this dude away._

So gnashed my teeth and pushed my face in to a progressively uglier expression, while I verrrrrrrrry slooooooowwwwwwly drew my right hand to my side, as if I was going to reach for something.  

The guy took off.  

I emerged from the situation without that slimeball making any contact whatsoever.

There are plenty of people that may scoff and say that was not a real fight or that I am not a real fighter.

Decide for yourself.  As for me, I have no regrets.  In fact, I'm pretty damn pleased with myself.

I do want to make sure that the fightings skills that I learn are something that I can realisitically use.  Not skills that a 6 foot tall 200 pound male instructor _says_ I can use, skills I_ know_ I can use, not being anything close to male, 6 feet tall, or 200 pounds.

But make no mistake, regardless of how potent, or how potentially lethal my fighting is......I still don't want some strange weirdo touching me if I can help it.  That to me, is self defense.


----------



## Ram (Oct 7, 2006)

> There are plenty of people that may scoff and say that was not a real fight or that I am not a real fighter.


 
I think the motto "whatever works" fits perfectly here.:highfive:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 7, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> The guy took off.
> 
> I emerged from the situation without that slimeball making any contact whatsoever.
> 
> There are plenty of people that may scoff and say that was not a real fight or that I am not a real fighter.


 

Yeah but those are the people we don't speak to. Well Done.


----------



## donna (Oct 7, 2006)

Well done Carol, Good use of your Self Defence skills. Glad it all turned out OK.


----------



## bydand (Oct 8, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> Not long ago a person approached me at night, at a gas station while I was gassing up my car.  His intentions were not good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think these are the three most important thoughts about your encounter.  You recognized a danger, knew what you wanted (or didn't want), then made the outcome of the situation meet your expectations.  Sounds like you did a damn fine job on the SD side to me!!  The "best" fights are the ones you stop before they even start, good for you.


----------



## Fu_Bag (Oct 8, 2006)

bydand said:


> I think these are the three most important thoughts about your encounter. You recognized a danger, knew what you wanted (or didn't want), then made the outcome of the situation meet your expectations. Sounds like you did a damn fine job on the SD side to me!! The "best" fights are the ones you stop before they even start, good for you.


 
I'll second that!  Great work, Carol!


----------



## Bigshadow (Oct 8, 2006)

Way to go Carol!  That IS self defense!  Self defense doesn't have to mean making contact.  In reality a confrontation is one person wanting to impose their will on the other.  Actually, after thinking about it the confrontation begins far before physical contact is made.  You did very well!


----------



## MJS (Oct 8, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> So, if it's been established that there are different styles of an ecounter where you will or may end up using physical means...are the differences such that they change the techqniues and actions you would do, and how you train?


 
Yes, I tend to gear my response to what is happening at the time.  This is why I think its important to have an equal balance of techniques.


----------



## MJS (Oct 8, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> I see the situation a little bit differently.
> 
> Not long ago a person approached me at night, at a gas station while I was gassing up my car. His intentions were not good.
> 
> ...


 
Glad to hear that everything turned out ok Carol!   Many times, I get the impression that some think that physical skills are the only answer to a problem.  IMHO, if I can verbally defuse the situation, without having it come to blows, then I feel that the job was done, and I successfully defended myself! 

Mike


----------



## Lisa (Oct 8, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> I see the situation a little bit differently.
> 
> Not long ago a person approached me at night, at a gas station while I was gassing up my car.  His intentions were not good.
> 
> ...



Damn fine use of your other skills Carol.  Quick thinking and using other methods besides a physical confrontation is always a good idea.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Oct 8, 2006)

Hey Carol,

That is a great and a good use of awareness and avoidance skills!


----------



## zDom (Oct 8, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Carol,
> 
> That is a great and a good use of awareness and avoidance skills!



I agree!

Well done, Carol


----------



## exile (Oct 8, 2006)

Carol---I agree w/all the other posters. But I also think that the guy picked up on something crucial: you really would have fought like hell and _hurt_ him if he had moved in on you. He _got_ that, and that's what shut him down.


----------



## Adept (Oct 8, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:


> So, if it's been established that there are different styles of an ecounter where you will or may end up using physical means...are the differences such that they change the techqniues and actions you would do, and how you train?



When I'm at work (bouncer) it is primarily about control of the other person/people. You want to grab them, and toss them out the door/gate. Striking and ground work aren't things I try to initiate in these situations.

On the other hand, if I'm not at work and I feel I'm going to have to get physical with someone, striking is one of my first avenues of attack.

Then of course there are other situations, like controlling a friend who's had too much to drink, or siblings/family members who get out of control during arguments. Situations where you don't want to hurt the other person, but want to stop them doing that they were doing, or were about to do.

So when I train, I try to make sure I'm keeping my striking, grappling, submission and groundwork skills equally sharp. I probably put a bit too much time into my striking, but I enjoy it more (and it's easier to train without a partner).


----------



## zDom (Oct 8, 2006)

exile said:


> But I also think that the guy picked up on something crucial: you really would have fought like hell and _hurt_ him if he had moved in on you. He _got_ that, and that's what shut him down.



I agree. And I think it goes beyond just the appearance of confidence.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but people sometimes can sense things, even beyond detecting pheremones on a subconcious level or picking up on subtle visual cues.

Or maybe it IS just the sum of all those types of things that give people those "feelings."

I dunno...


----------



## exile (Oct 8, 2006)

zDom said:


> And I think it goes beyond just the appearance of confidence.
> 
> I can't quite put my finger on it, but people sometimes can sense things, even beyond detecting pheremones on a subconcious level or picking up on subtle visual cues.
> 
> ...



No, that's exactly right zDom. What I was getting at is that the guy really did pick up on something real in Carol's attitude---she really would have fought, she knew it and so did he---however he came by that knowledge.  

When a guy starts in on any kind of aggession, the thing he's looking for is a sign of fear in the prospective victim. I don't know how you would test this out, but I suspect that that's especially the case when he's contemplating aggression against a woman. And when instead of showing fear, everything in her response---what she says (or doesn't say), her body language and so on---makes it clear she's willing to do damage to him, it definitely communicates the message that it's time for him to go home. Definitely, it goes beyond appearance, as you say---because if it isn't really there inside, it's not going to convince him. 

This is one of the great benefits for women in doing MAs, I think---it gives them that inward sense of power and ferocity that by itself will probably change the mind of the average predatory creep. Those guys are cowards, and a woman who're prepared to hurt them badly is way more than they want to face.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 9, 2006)

IMO, streetfighting, and self-defense are one and the same. There's no distinction. If you are in an encounter, outside of the training hall, it falls in the "streetfighting" category. In those cases, you are defending yourself.


----------



## Dark (Oct 9, 2006)

Hand Sword said:


> IMO, streetfighting, and self-defense are one and the same. There's no distinction. If you are in an encounter, outside of the training hall, it falls in the "streetfighting" category. In those cases, you are defending yourself.


 
I don't agree with that assessment and have made several attempts to define my logic and analysis of those situations. Like several others here I see "self-defense" as fighting with the intent to defend yourself. I see street-fighting as basically brawling with the intent to do serious physical harm.

I would not call bouncing, personal protection or anyother LEO-ish job as "streetfighting" because you are not intending to render physical harm to anyone. But then again this is all a question of how we define the same events...


----------



## matt.m (Oct 9, 2006)

You know I also believe that time, experience, age, and maturity all have reference in decision making.  Carol, that was cool what you did.  You have cool points in my book.  BTW how close to UNH or 9 were you when this happened?  I used to go to Sanford Maine on occassion.

Anyway I am going to back up my first statement with examples from 1996 and 2006.  In 1996 I happened to be at a bar at the mouth of the Patomac on a 4 day weekend from Camp Lejeune, NC.  I was in shape, great cardio from wrestling and Judo and daily activities from just being a Marine.  So it's summer and tank top.  Well, I thought a guy was being a jerk and told him so.  He replied with "You wanna go."  I stomp kicked him at the hinge point above the quad insertion, then answered yes.  (Fight was over then).

Fast forward ten years.....over the summer my loud mouth neighbor was making quite a disturbance in his front yard, I told him to quit.  He said "You wanna fight,"  I know he can't at all so I answer "If it will make you feel better about yourself to fight against someone smaller with leg braces on then let me know."  He went inside and I heard nothing more about it.

Two somewhat similar events, two totally different outcomes.


----------



## Hand Sword (Oct 9, 2006)

Dark said:


> I don't agree with that assessment and have made several attempts to define my logic and analysis of those situations. Like several others here I see "self-defense" as fighting with the intent to defend yourself. I see street-fighting as basically brawling with the intent to do serious physical harm.
> 
> I would not call bouncing, personal protection or anyother LEO-ish job as "streetfighting" because you are not intending to render physical harm to anyone. But then again this is all a question of how we define the same events...


 

 In all of those situations are you defending yourself?  YES. Could a life be on the line in those situations? Yes. So, no difference, if in those situations or not. It's one and the same. Even in street fights there's not always intent to do serious harm. Just gotta whoop their backside! So, sometimes it's just a "wash". Too may scenarios for me, so, I have it down to two: Fighting, or training. Outside training, dojos, etc.. it's a fight, and you must defend yourself.  Otherwise, you go about your everyday life.


----------



## Carol (Oct 9, 2006)

matt.m said:


> You know I also believe that time, experience, age, and maturity all have reference in decision making. Carol, that was cool what you did. You have cool points in my book. BTW how close to UNH or 9 were you when this happened? I used to go to Sanford Maine on occassion.


 
I love Sanford!  Heck, I love Maine 

I wasn't up by the University, I was down closer to the Mass. border.



> Anyway I am going to back up my first statement with examples from 1996 and 2006. In 1996 I happened to be at a bar at the mouth of the Patomac on a 4 day weekend from Camp Lejeune, NC. I was in shape, great cardio from wrestling and Judo and daily activities from just being a Marine. So it's summer and tank top. Well, I thought a guy was being a jerk and told him so. He replied with "You wanna go." I stomp kicked him at the hinge point above the quad insertion, then answered yes. (Fight was over then).
> 
> Fast forward ten years.....over the summer my loud mouth neighbor was making quite a disturbance in his front yard, I told him to quit. He said "You wanna fight," I know he can't at all so I answer "If it will make you feel better about yourself to fight against someone smaller with leg braces on then let me know." He went inside and I heard nothing more about it.
> 
> Two somewhat similar events, two totally different outcomes.


 
You did well, my friend.  You have cool points in my book too....not that you need them   :asian:


----------



## Em MacIntosh (May 14, 2007)

I think the words, litterally translated, are exactly what they are.  I think they overshadow each other on many areas.  A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.  Self-Defense doesn't always happen in the street.  I think any street fight requires self defense though.  When something is up for interpretation and perspective, it seems to lose it's concrete universal meaning.  To me it's litteral.  Besides, I call it all scuffle or fistacuffs (or bootstacuffs lol)


----------

