Ninjutsu good for security agent?

[Paul_D]

This may answer my previous question. Is the key legality vs consent?

Sorry, missed your question.

As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice. Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD

If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence. You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight. This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.

Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.

 

[jobo]

Sorry, missed your question.

As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice. Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD

If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence. You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight. This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.

Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.

Paul you keep banging the same points out with out checking your facts, fighting is not illegal , it may be breech of the peace in the,wrong place, but breach of the peace is not an offence. What is illegal is abh, that is you have hurt the other guy a significant amount, you may have consented to go outside, but that doesn't mean you can't claim sd if the other guy throws the first punch, or even that you feared for your safety if you throw first

 

[Steve]

IIRC, I read somewhere that in UK law, consent is a legal defense (similar to a claim of self-defense), but that defense ends when actual physical harm occurs. Someone more familiar with their laws can probably expand upon or correct that.

I dont know if I get it yet. It seems like defining something as a legal dsfense against assault is a retrospective determination. I think I've said before that self defense as a legal term is a tough one precisely because it relies on a retrospective analysis, and really, as a legal term that analysis is done by other people (whether that's cops, lawyers, or a jury). I mean, it's not reliably tactical. You don't in a crisis choose fight versus self defense. You exercise what judgment you can in the moment and hope that others agree after the fact that whatever you did was reasonable.

Sorry, missed your question.

As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice. Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD

If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence. You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight. This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.

Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.

that all makes sense. Is it self defense for the cop if he/she initiates contact with a person and gets into an altercation? What about for the person who is not choosing to be physically restrained by a cop? That's not consensual.

I understand that this is a nitpicky line of reasoning. I'm really trying to understand how far the idea of "self defense is a legal term" or "self defense is non-consensual violence" or "self defense is a legal defense against assault" goes.

And, just to be clear, I agree with you completely about all of the other stuff. I have said many times that if self defense is about being safer, there are a lot of things we can do that don't involve learning to fight. I'm just thinking through this one facet of your position.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I dont know if I get it yet. It seems like defining something as a legal dsfense against assault is a retrospective determination. I think I've said before that self defense as a legal term is a tough one precisely because it relies on a retrospective analysis, and really, as a legal term that analysis is done by other people (whether that's cops, lawyers, or a jury). I mean, it's not reliably tactical. You don't in a crisis choose fight versus self defense. You exercise what judgment you can in the moment and hope that others agree after the fact that whatever you did was reasonable.

Agreed, on all points.

 

[Steve]

Sorry, missed your question.

As I see it; the cop does not want to take part in the violence, he has to because the criminal gives him no choice. Therefore he is protecting himself from violence he does not want to be a part of. So for me this is SD

If you get into an argument in bar (as an example) and the guy offers to "step outside and settle this" if you agree you have consented to take part in the violence. You could have said no, you could have walked away, but you consented to the fight. This then makes it very difficulty to claim SD when you get to the Police Station.

Obviously no one consents to being mugged or attacked, so protecting yourself from non consensual criminal violence is SD.

Paul, sorry. Another thing bubbled up to the front of my brain regarding this. In this case, you are suggesting that the cop does not want to take part in the violence, but isn't that an integral part of their profession? Is it actually true that cops don't want to take part in violence? Were this so, they could simply choose to be bakers or get a job as a barista. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we have women and men willing to do that job. But to say it's not a choice is a stretch. Isn't it?

Compare this with a professional MMA fighter. Like a cop, they have chosen a profession that is inherently violent. Like cops, they spend a lot of time training for violence that is specifically preparing them for the brand of violence they are likely to encounter in their profession. And like a cop, if they truly didn't want to engage in that violence, they could choose to be bakers or a barista.

Now, contrast this with an office worker who is mugged. The office worker has not chosen a violent profession. They have every reason to believe that their job is safe and that they will not engage in any violence while sitting in their cubicle. If the average office worker engages in violence, I would expect that it is not by choice.

This is also true for a cop who is off duty and is mugged. Or an MMA fighter who is off duty and is mugged. I'm distinguishing between the execution of professional duties and off-duty/personal behaviors.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Paul, sorry. Another thing bubbled up to the front of my brain regarding this. In this case, you are suggesting that the cop does not want to take part in the violence, but isn't that an integral part of their profession? Is it actually true that cops don't want to take part in violence? Were this so, they could simply choose to be bakers or get a job as a barista. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad we have women and men willing to do that job. But to say it's not a choice is a stretch. Isn't it?

Compare this with a professional MMA fighter. Like a cop, they have chosen a profession that is inherently violent. Like cops, they spend a lot of time training for violence that is specifically preparing them for the brand of violence they are likely to encounter in their profession. And like a cop, if they truly didn't want to engage in that violence, they could choose to be bakers or a barista.

Now, contrast this with an office worker who is mugged. The office worker has not chosen a violent profession. They have every reason to believe that their job is safe and that they will not engage in any violence while sitting in their cubicle. If the average office worker engages in violence, I would expect that it is not by choice.

This is also true for a cop who is off duty and is mugged. Or an MMA fighter who is off duty and is mugged. I'm distinguishing between the execution of professional duties and off-duty/personal behaviors.

I think there's a useful distinction between "want to" and "will", Steve. There probably are some cops who enjoy the violence (I know I've met folks with that proclivity outside LE), but they're almost certainly a tiny minority. They accept the need for it, but don't have to like it. They consent to the risk of violence in general by their choice of profession, but that doesn't mean they consent to the violence, itself.

 

[Steve]

I think there's a useful distinction between "want to" and "will", Steve. There probably are some cops who enjoy the violence (I know I've met folks with that proclivity outside LE), but they're almost certainly a tiny minority. They accept the need for it, but don't have to like it. They consent to the risk of violence in general by their choice of profession, but that doesn't mean they consent to the violence, itself.

You're using a lot of subjective language here, my friend. Want to or will, likes violence... That's not where I'm at here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You're using a lot of subjective language here, my friend. Want to or will, likes violence... That's not where I'm at here.

I think it's a nuance of "consent" - not the legal sense, of course, but I don't think we can ignore these nuances in a non-legal discussion. In a legal sense, it's clear that courts don't consider accepting the position as consent to violence.

But I may be missing what you're looking for. It's been known to happen.

 

[Grenadier]

Admin's Note:

Thread closed, due to excessive drift.