Martial arts as defense on the streets

[Gweilo]

So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?

Public disorder, unless one of them get stupid.

 

[drop bear]

There's a fair amount of people deciding to "take it outside". Those clips included significant audiences that were cheering the combatants along.

So self defense doesn't include an audience?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

what have they taken outside ? , their argument !,agreeing to go out for an arguments isn't the same as an agreement to fight, and people arguing seem unlikely to reach an agreement on a fight, how do they seal their agreement with a hand shake! .I fail to see what bystanders have to do with it ? nor any evidence any of those people were inside in the recent past.

Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Public disorder, unless one of them get stupid.

Thanks. I thought that might be the case, but wanted to get clarity.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Meh....just call it what it is....running away....avoiding an attack.

It is running away. And it's something that can be done in a self-defense situation. I'm not sure there's a way to divide it wholly from self-defense. In some situations, it's the best choice while defending - get some space and time, and get out. It doesn't always happen before there's an attack - may be escape, rather than avoidance.

Not much sense in nitpicking it one way or the other. It's a tool that may or may not apply in a given situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So self defense doesn't include an audience?

It can, but it's going to be less common that a crowd gathers and cheers on two people when one of them is trying to avoid the fight and get away. Except in school - happened a fair amount back in school.

That's why I said it appeared many of those weren't self-defense situations. We don't really know the context, but what we can see there looks a lot like a couple of guys decided to square off and fight.

 

[drop bear]

It can, but it's going to be less common that a crowd gathers and cheers on two people when one of them is trying to avoid the fight and get away. Except in school - happened a fair amount back in school.

That's why I said it appeared many of those weren't self-defense situations. We don't really know the context, but what we can see there looks a lot like a couple of guys decided to square off and fight.

And a square off fight isn't self defense?

 

[drop bear]

So, if two people decide to step outside and fight, which is it?

If you are using legal terminology then running away and deescalation isn't self defense because there has been no assult.

 

[jobo]

Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.

no Im. not, if we are( and we are) talking about the legal concept if sd then we also need to consider the legal concept of " agreement" as that will be what used in any court case

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And a square off fight isn't self defense?

It is if you're forced into it. It isn't if you decide you'd like to have a fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are using legal terminology then running away and deescalation isn't self defense because there has been no assult.

Agreed, because legal terminology (the "self-defense" defense) only deals with actions that would otherwise be illegal. I don't normally stick to just the legal definition, for that reason.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no Im. not, if we are( and we are) talking about the legal concept if sd then we also need to consider the legal concept of " agreement" as that will be what used in any court case

No, you're really just trying to find something to argue about. I asked for clarification of something you said earlier, and now you're trying to argue about really vague points.

 

[jobo]

No, you're really just trying to find something to argue about. I asked for clarification of something you said earlier, and now you're trying to argue about really vague points.

no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement, if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and irrelevanand

so a direct question on your point, how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !

 

[Bruce7]

no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement, if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and irrelevanand

so a direct question on your point, how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !

While I find the idea of discussing contact law as it would relate to fighting interesting me.
A law forum would be a better place for discussion.

 

[jobo]

While I find the idea of discussing contact law as it would relate to fighting interesting me.
A law forum would be a better place for discussion.

Why ? We are diiscussing the law of self defence , which that then is important part

 

[Headhunter]

Okay, you're nitpicking words, rather than following the discussion. I was hoping for some actual information.

You just basically summed up all of jobos posts right there

 

[Bruce7]

Why ? We are diiscussing the law of self defence , which that then is important part

I agree with you, but this a complicated subject to which one judge might rule one way and different judge might rule another way.
There is criminal law against fighting and you have contact civil law that might allow a verbal contact to say there is no assault.
Example: fighting in the ring is not assault based on contact law. Apply that to a verbal contract would very tricke.
I don't think there is president for that.
There is no clear cut answer.

 

[jobo]

Given most TMA generally doesnt cover the skillset needed for self defence i disagree. On a tradtional stance of all what you needing for self defence beaing a martial skill and martial arts meant to teach you that, i disagree. But thats traditional usage.

they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill: you can run.
I think Ramsey dewy put it as or at least self defence schools etc as (at least the bad ones) teaching you to meet violence with wimpy violence.

Have to say my favorite self defence thing is the person who just runs from a knife.

Edit: fat RIP, i didnt fully read your post clearly. Some styles work better than others though for diffrent things.



I will have to look into which countries have Mutual combat in the U.K. Its obviously not fully banned as we have prize fights. Im pretty sure you cant claim self defence if you agreed to fight someone though, you could if they break the rules of the fight or continue after you withdrew your consent.

Given most TMA generally doesnt cover the skillset needed for self defence i disagree. On a tradtional stance of all what you needing for self defence beaing a martial skill and martial arts meant to teach you that, i disagree. But thats traditional usage.

they generally dont cover the most important self defence skill: you can run.
I think Ramsey dewy put it as or at least self defence schools etc as (at least the bad ones) teaching you to meet violence with wimpy violence.

Have to say my favorite self defence thing is the person who just runs from a knife.

Edit: fat RIP, i didnt fully read your post clearly. Some styles work better than others though for diffrent things.



I will have to look into which countries have Mutual combat in the U.K. Its obviously not fully banned as we have prize fights. Im pretty sure you cant claim self defence if you agreed to fight someone though, you could if they break the rules of the fight or continue after you withdrew your consent.

Prize fighting us specifically banned in the UK , there's a legal difference between fighting for payment and prize fighting

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no you were taking issues( arguing) with what is said, by introducing the concept of agreement, if you can't adequately define agreement in the context of a legal discussion it's your point which is both " vague" and irrelevanand

so a direct question on your point, how in this scenario your painting of two persons " agreeing to go outside, has " agreement "been communicated and accepted by both parties, in essence how was the verbal contract to fight made !

Go back and re-read my posts. I was asking questions, because what you said didn't match what I'd assumed the case was. Your responses seemed to imply something and I asked another question. You decided it was time for an argument.

EDIT: To your question. Dunno. Two guys decide to have a fight. Doesn't matter for the point how they did it. Could be a handshake. Could be a challenge accepted. Could be a dare. Could be a signed contract written on a table napkin. Doesn't much matter for the point of the question.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Prize fighting us specifically banned in the UK , there's a legal difference between fighting for payment and prize fighting

Interesting - I don't know if there's a legal difference in the US, but professional fighters are often referred to as "prize fighters". What's the difference in the UK?