Martial arts as defense on the streets

[jobo]

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.

It . Matters very much if you going to make a legal point that it isn't self defence , there has to be a very specific form of words , so that both can be said to have agreed, and then having gone out side to " fight" either can change his mind , then that agreement is null and void and self defence can apply again

 

[drop bear]

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.

self defense legally, is a defense against an assault charge.

 

[drop bear]

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

How come?

You are still defending yourself. He is still attacking you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It . Matters very much if you going to make a legal point that it isn't self defence , there has to be a very specific form of words , so that both can be said to have agreed, and then having gone out side to " fight" either can change his mind , then that agreement is null and void and self defence can apply again

For my question, it doesn't matter. The law will have a definition (probably through case law) of what constitutes "consent". I don't get to define that. That's why I said, "Dunno." I'm guessing by your stalling that you don't, either, and that you really didn't know what you were talking about in the post that started this nonsense. I think this has run its course.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How come?

You are still defending yourself. He is still attacking you.

By that definition, any time two people fight, it's self-defense. Not my definition.

 

[jobo]

For my question, it doesn't matter. The law will have a definition (probably through case law) of what constitutes "consent". I don't get to define that. That's why I said, "Dunno." I'm guessing by your stalling that you don't, either, and that you really didn't know what you were talking about in the post that started this nonsense. I think this has run its course.

i see youve changed the word under consideration ( again) consent andagreement are not interchangeable words, but the legal definition of consent is pretty much established in most countries as being " informed" consent, that is you clearly know what you are consenting to and that's its consent with free will and that you can with drW that consent at any time.

if someones says, letsstep outside and settle this argument man to man, its far from clear you have consented to a fight,
if they say come outside and I'm punch your lights out, you clearly haven't given them consent to knock you out, it's not clear at all if you have given them consent to try and knock you out, all you've done it go outside, there's no agreement to fight.

if they are very very clear about their intent and you verbally agree to fight them and go outside, then you can say after the first punch, I with draw my consent, then if it carries on, you are now defending them self's against an attack for which there is no consent.

just as in an actual fight by consent in a licienced boxing ring, either party can quit when ever they want, if the other party continues there is no consent and what they are doing is assault, for which self defence is available to you

 

[drop bear]

A side point - most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights.

So this is by your personal definition of self defense. Not any sort of consensus.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So this is by your personal definition of self defense. Not any sort of consensus.

We've talked about this before - there are a several generally accepted definitions that get used. I try to specify what my definition is to keep down misunderstandings. Nothing particularly special about mine - that's why I said including consensual fighting didn't fit my definition (rather than saying it's wrong, because there are others who'd probably include it in their definition, for just the reason you pointed out). It doesn't make much sense to me as a concept if we include consensual fighting, but I'm not the arbiter of "right".

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

And a square off fight isn't self defense?

So not commenting on the legal definition or anything like that. But ive got a group of friends who engage (or used to engage) in a technically illegal boxing tournament, where they basically meet up in a parking lot, fight whoever their designated to fight that day, go to the hospital if needed, and at the end of the day go home till next time. Its a square off fight, not sanctioned by anyone, entirely voluntary. None of them would consider it self defense (again, ive no idea if legally it would be considered self defense or assault if any of them were ever arrested)

 

[Buka]

It’s probably best to remember that things having to do with law vary from state to state, from country to country etc.

 

[drop bear]

We've talked about this before - there are a several generally accepted definitions that get used. I try to specify what my definition is to keep down misunderstandings. Nothing particularly special about mine - that's why I said including consensual fighting didn't fit my definition (rather than saying it's wrong, because there are others who'd probably include it in their definition, for just the reason you pointed out). It doesn't make much sense to me as a concept if we include consensual fighting, but I'm not the arbiter of "right".

Yeah. You didn't clarify in that post it was a personal definition of self defense. Which has what got everyone trying to work out what the consensus was.

Of course there isn't one. Which is why I describe it as a weasel word.

 

[drop bear]

So not commenting on the legal definition or anything like that. But ive got a group of friends who engage (or used to engage) in a technically illegal boxing tournament, where they basically meet up in a parking lot, fight whoever their designated to fight that day, go to the hospital if needed, and at the end of the day go home till next time. Its a square off fight, not sanctioned by anyone, entirely voluntary. None of them would consider it self defense (again, ive no idea if legally it would be considered self defense or assault if any of them were ever arrested)

So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.

There was technically a ref. Someone decided who won and who lost. But either way, both people agreed to attack each other. So while they're technically defending themselves, their also technically assaulting someone at the same time.

 

[drop bear]

There was technically a ref. Someone decided who won and who lost. But either way, both people agreed to attack each other. So while they're technically defending themselves, their also technically assaulting someone at the same time.

Well yeah. Technically they are both engaging in self defense.

But otherwise yeah everyone is going to have their own definition. And that in itself changes the definition of self defense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. You didn't clarify in that post it was a personal definition of self defense. Which has what got everyone trying to work out what the consensus was.

Of course there isn't one. Which is why I describe it as a weasel word.

You use that as a baiting term. That's far beneath you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So on the street with no rules and no ref and someone attacking you isn't considered self defense.

That seems a stretch of his description - and seems purposely worded to lead the discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well yeah. Technically they are both engaging in self defense.

But otherwise yeah everyone is going to have their own definition. And that in itself changes the definition of self defense.

There are a handful of commonly used definitions. I don't think I've ever heard anyone include consensual fights (like boxing matches, whether sanctioned or not) in the self-defense concept. In your past statements, you quite clearly haven't. So what's your purpose in pushing hard for the inclusion now...or is it just you trying to get an argument out of the person who said it wasn't included??

 

[drop bear]

There are a handful of commonly used definitions. I don't think I've ever heard anyone include consensual fights (like boxing matches, whether sanctioned or not) in the self-defense concept. In your past statements, you quite clearly haven't. So what's your purpose in pushing hard for the inclusion now...or is it just you trying to get an argument out of the person who said it wasn't included??

I have a few time included unsanctioned boxing matches as self defense.

And there are not a handful of commonly used definitions. There is no consensus on what the definition is.

 

[drop bear]

That seems a stretch of his description - and seems purposely worded to lead the discussion.

It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't.

 

[drop bear]

You use that as a baiting term. That's far beneath you.

This is what the term means.

"Weasel words" are a colloquial term for words or phrases used to avoid being forthright. Weasel words are used when the speaker wants to make it seem like they've given a clear answer to a question or made a direct statement, when actually they've said something inconclusive or vague."

So you can make a statement like. "most of those videos don't appear to be self-defense. They look like consensual fights." and it sounds definitive.

But you are not using the dictionary description. You are not using the legal definition. You are using your personal definition or a handful of commonly used definitions.(which is meaningless in itself)

And so a term seems definitive it is really meaningless.