Aikido hate

[Paul_D]

There is overlap. You've said so yourself.

Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap. However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.

 

[jobo]

I’m not quoting anything. As we have said whilst there is no specific law and it may therefore appear to be legal, there will be other offences that it comes under. You can be charged with common assault without even injuring someone, so if you are injuring someone there is going to be something you can be arrested for. If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?

Of course if neither of us agree to press charges we aren’t going to go to court, as the courts have too many more serious things to deal with, but the fact we decide not to press charges doesn’t mean there aren’t any.

I'm getting confused now, are you stating that you are likely to get arrested or that ou have committed a criminal offence that will be proccessed through the courts. It's seems the first ?

any laying on of hands is common assault if you a) don't consent and b) the other person makes a complaint.

but we are talking about a consenual exchange where they have a agreed to the other trying to punch them never mind just touching them. In that situation common assault just wouldn't run

you keep talking about mystery offences that have been committed, but won't say what these mystery offences might be

 

[jobo]

Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap. However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.

??? You keep using the term illegal street fight as opposed to a legal sports fight

why is a fight in a dojo legal whilst the exact same fight on a car park is "illegal"? They both involved a fight, injuries and consent

 

[Martial D]

Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap. However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.

Ok, so say you walk around a corner, and see two people in combat.

How do you objectively define what you see?

Unless you know WHY the combat started, can you know if what you are seeing is a fight or self defense?

 

[Paul_D]

you keep talking about mystery offences that have been committed, but won't say what these mystery offences might be

Yo would need to check with a solicitor, as I am not one, hence I didn't quote the offences. But you didn't; answer my question:-

If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?

 

[Paul_D]

can you know if what you are seeing is a fight or self defense?

Not definitively no.

 

[Paul_D]

??? You keep using the term illegal street fight as opposed to a legal sports fight

why is a fight in a dojo legal whilst the exact same fight on a car park is "illegal"? They both involved a fight, injuries and consent

The police don't tend to take you away for questioning if you are fighting in the dojo? Are you suggesting of the police fighting in a car park they would just let you carry on?

 

[Martial D]

Not definitively no.

My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.

What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.

 

[jobo]

Yo would need to check with a solicitor, as I am not one, hence I didn't quote the offences. But you didn't; answer my question:-

If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?

so to clarify you don't actually know of any offences' despite saying repeatedly that they exist?

what the police do is irrelevant to the conversation. If they cant think of an offence they can't arrest you. They can usually manage to think of a possible offence, but that's a long way from saying you have attacked illegally. That can only be determined by a court

 

[Paul_D]

My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.

What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.

No it isn't because agreeing to fighting someone has nothing to do with SD. SD is protection yourself from criminal violence that you do not want to take part in.

if they were the same then a 24 year old man in a hoodie isn't beating the crap out of an 80 year old woman because he wants to steal her purse, he's doing it because they wanted fight each other in the street.

 

[Paul_D]

so to clarify you don't actually know of any offences' despite saying repeatedly that they exist?
Absolutely yes, you would have to check with a solicitor to get all of the offences that it would be possible for you to be arrested under.

That can only be determined by a court

That is true, but then i never said it wasn't.

 

[Martial D]

My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.

What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.

No it isn't because agreeing to fighting someone has nothing to do with SD. SD is protection yourself from criminal violence that you do not want to take part in.

if they were the same then a 24 year old man in a hoodie isn't beating the crap out of an 80 year old woman because he wants to steal her purse, he's doing it because they wanted fight each other in the street.

Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?

 

[Steve]

Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap. However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.

If you and I agree to go outside, square off 5 to 6 feet apart in a fighting stance, and I punch you, whether or not it's self defense isn't relevant. In this situation, the "self defense" is the choice not to go outside, using your current definition of self defense, which morphs from post to post.

You acknowledged just a few posts ago that self defense is a legal defense for poor behavior, which is an after-the-fact justification for violence that has already occurred.

@gpseymour, this is what I meant earlier. We have at least two very different definitions used by the same person within the same thread. It's very difficult to keep up, particularly when a definition can change in more subtle ways as the discussion becomes more specific.

On a high level, self defense situations are more a matter of context, tactics and strategy, as opposed to a matter of skill. At least, that's what the experts around here have said in other threads. Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).

 

[Paul_D]

Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?

Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?

No it isn’t, you are correct.

As has been explained elsewhere though, for ME to call it a fight it has to be consensual. If one or more parties don’t consent then it isn’t a fight, it’s SD. Hence I use the terms consensual fight for fighting, and non consensual criminal violence for SD.

Lumping everything together as fighting is misleading in a number of ways, which is I (and others) chose not to do it. Firstly it suggests that the only possible outcome to any SD situation is a fight. It isn’t.

Also, you have people like Defence Lab who pretend men getting into fights is the same as SD (and in fact pretending there is no other situation in which people needs to defend themselves) and claim they are teaching SD when what they are actually teaching is fighting skills. You don’t send your poor old Gran down to the local MMA gym to roll if she is worried about having her handbag stolen. Now that is ludicrous.

Further it leads people to believe that if they have fighting skills they are equipped for SD. If the were the case skilled fighters would never be the victim of crime. And Vice Versa, people would only be able to defend themselves if they spend years training to become skilled fighters. Neither of these statements is true.

It also leads people into the mistaken belief that y agreeing to go outside and settle an argument by fighting they are acting legally in SD.

Also in a fight you want an exchange of blows, it is pretty boring if you spend the whole round just getting hit, or just hitting the other guy. In SD the very last thing you want is an exchange of blows. What you want is a one way stream of blows that only ends when your attacker is no longer in a position to be a threat, and you have therefore created the opportunity to escape. You do not want him to “get a go”.

There are other problems too, but you start to get the ideal.

I am of course aware not everyone clarifies these terms in the same way, so you kind offer of a dictionary is noted but not necessary.

 

[Martial D]

No it isn’t, you are correct.

As has been explained elsewhere though, for ME to call it a fight it has to be consensual. If one or more parties don’t consent then it isn’t a fight, it’s SD. Hence I use the terms consensual fight for fighting, and non consensual criminal violence for SD.

Lumping everything together as fighting is misleading in a number of ways, which is I (and others) chose not to do it. Firstly it suggests that the only possible outcome to any SD situation is a fight. It isn’t.

Also, you have people like Defence Lab who pretend men getting into fights is the same as SD (and in fact pretending there is no other situation in which people needs to defend themselves) and claim they are teaching SD when what they are actually teaching is fighting skills. You don’t send your poor old Gran down to the local MMA gym to roll if she is worried about having her handbag stolen. Now that is ludicrous.

Further it leads people to believe that if they have fighting skills they are equipped for SD. If the were the case skilled fighters would never be the victim of crime. And Vice Versa, people would only be able to defend themselves if they spend years training to become skilled fighters. Neither of these statements is true.

It also leads people into the mistaken belief that y agreeing to go outside and settle an argument by fighting they are acting legally in SD.

Also in a fight you want an exchange of blows, it is pretty boring if you spend the whole round just getting hit, or just hitting the other guy. In SD the very last thing you want is an exchange of blows. What you want is a one way stream of blows that only ends when your attacker is no longer in a position to be a threat, and you have therefore created the opportunity to escape. You do not want him to “get a go”.

There are other problems too, but you start to get the ideal.

I am of course aware not everyone clarifies these terms in the same way, so you kind offer of a dictionary is noted but not necessary.

So you invent your own meanings for already defined words and argue the definition with those using the accepted definition?

How does that normally work out for you?

 

[Paul_D]

If you and I agree to go outside, square off 5 to 6 feet apart in a fighting stance, and I punch you, whether or not it's self defense isn't relevant.

If you want to stay on the right side of the law, it is relevant.

In this situation, the "self defense" is the choice not to go outside

Correct.

You acknowledged just a few posts ago that self defense is a legal defense for poor behavior,

Protecting yourself from harm is not poor behaviour.

@gpseymour
Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).[/QUOTE]
Quite the contrary. The skills I have most used are not fighting skills, and the skills I have least used are fighting skills.

If your SD skills are good fighting skills are the thing you are least likely to use. Knowing how criminals select their targets means you can avoid doing what they are looking for and therefore avoid being selected as a victim. Hence your fighting skills don’t need to be used. If you know how to deal with eye contact challengers in bars the first time they look at you it never gets to the stage where they come across and say “What the **** are you looking at?” hence it never escalates to a fight. Being familiar with the rituals of violence means you can spot a potential incident when you are at the interview stage and head it off so you never have to use your fighting skills.


My wife was approached by three mean, being familiar with the ritual of violence and Target hardening meant they quickly realised she wasn’t; the victim they initially though she might be, and they moved on to go find an easier victim. Criminals do not want to fight you. They want to take what they want in the easiest possible fashion . They easy want victims.


I have dispelled far far more SD situations before they ever got to the stage that violence was necessary, than I have had to use violence because my skill were not able to stop it getting to that stage.


However, if you only ever view SD as men arguing and getting into fights with each other, you don’t learn these others skills. You just get good at fighting, and pretend you are doing SD.

 

[Steve]

Avoiding conflict entirely isn't self defense. That's typically referred to by most people as "every day." It's only self defense if you have been charged with a violent crime and are asserting that your violence was justified and should be excused.

You're describing what most people understand intuitively as "not being a dick." That's not self defense, although it's a good idea and makes life much more enjoyable.

I do want to be clear, I agree that there are strategies and tactical decisions that can escalate or de-escalate a volatile situation, and also that there are habits or behaviors that put one at unnecessary risk. I'm simply suggesting that this is not actually self defense. Or at the very least, it's one of several definitions of self defense which are used strategically by people to move the goalposts in a discussion in order to avoid acknowledging that fighting skills can't be learned if you aren't actually learning them.

Simply put, it isn't self defense if violence isn't involved.

 

[Paul_D]

So you invent your own meanings for already defined words and argue the definition with those using the accepted definition?

How does that normally work out for you?

No, I didn't invent them. And I wasn't arguing the definitions. What I said was if you agree to go out into the pub car park and fight someone that has nothing to do with self defence. You maintained that because it was a fight it also counts as self defence because fighting and self defence are the same thing.

I also note you ignored all the other points I made. I wonder why that would was.

 

[Paul_D]

I think we have reached the point where we have all made our point, repeatedly.

The four of us are never going to agree, and there is nothing wrong with that, in fact quite the opposite, the forum would be very boring if everyone agreed with everyone else. But as we are just going over old ground now, it's probably for the best if we draw a line under it and move on, at least in this thread.

I'm quite happy to continue he discussion privately though, so feel free to start a private conversation with me if you want to continue.

 

[Steve]

Things can get muddy, so I'll just bullet out my own beliefs quickly.

• Most self defense training focuses on fighting skill, but misses the mark because it stops short of application. This makes it unreliable, particularly as the system ages. This is because often, guys start teaching the system they have learned, but have no experience applying the skills they are teaching.
• Without violence, it's not self defense. Doesn't mean it isn't valuable training, but if it's not managing violence in some direct manner, it's something other than self defense.
• There are programs that can actually make people safer, but these are tailored programs that address specific safety concerns. For example, programs that target women should be different than programs that target kids, or college students, or the mentally ill, or the business professional.
• Fighting skill is a relatively unimportant aspect to the programs above.
• In order to actually know whether your program is useful or effective, you have to define the results so that they are measurable, establish a baseline and include some kind of a control group. We've seen this in the past, and it was extremely valuable and informative.
• For people who do not have a professional application for fighting skills, any martial art that has a competitive outlet for applying skills is going to be more successful than programs that don't.

What's interesting to me here is that I have suggested (and still believe) that training for fighting isn't really going to keep a person safer, and pointed to studies and self defense programs which ACTUALLY reduce risk, and was hammered pretty hard by the establishment here. I wonder where you guys are now?