Self Defence or Murder .. a fine line.

[K-man]

I'll call this the guy on the ground is still fighting.

No doubt in the world, but what you have shown is not what we are discussing.

In this case the guy on the ground was drunk and by one account was thrown on his head. He was not fighting, he was defenceless by all accounts. That is why the guy who killed him is charged with murder.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

No, there wasn't. And most likely, he had no 'fight' left in him at that point. But for him, the fight went to the ground, and for him, it ended on the ground.

True, as I said, semantics.
:asian:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

No doubt in the world, but what you have shown is not what we are discussing.

In this case the guy on the ground was drunk and by one account was thrown on his head. He was not fighting, he was defenceless by all accounts. That is why the guy who killed him is charged with murder.
:asian:

I fully agree with everything your saying. I do disagree with the conclusion that because he wasn't really fighting at that point that the altercation (fight) didn't go to the ground.

As the victim was already inebriated, and probably either unconscious or stunned from landing on his head, any skills he might have had were moot at that point.

So while I would maintain that the fight went to the ground, most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of having the skills to fight on the ground are inapplicable to this scenario.

 

[Steve]

Steve, I never understand why you think I'm trying to be offensive, you read into what I say nothing I mean when I write it. If you are determined to be offended I can't stop you.

I'm determined NOT to take offense, but passive aggressive behavior is on my short list of buttons to push.

There is a report in a newspaper about a crime, I don't read it as a martial arts issue at all, it's a legal and police article. You see it as something all about the grappling and I understand that however you refuse to see where I'm coming from and chose to see it as my being rude, well I'm not.

K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here.

Couple of things. 1: Whether or not it's a martial arts issue, grappling was involved. 2: Acknowledging that there was grappling involved doesn't make my position "all about the grappling." That's just the part on which you chose to fixate. And 3: Being rude is as much a cultural thing as language. In my family, and in my community, your current behavior would be considered very rude.

I understood your post the first time you posted it. You asserted that the article didn't give enough information to conclude that they were grappling. It did, and I pointed out specifically where. You were incorrect. You then argued that grappling isn't a verb. It is, and I shared the definition with you. And then you argued I was using the term incorrectly. I wasn't, and now you acknowledge that I am using the term correctly, albeit via Kman.

don't get me wrong. I like you. i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate. It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.

 

[Steve]

I fully agree with everything your saying. I do disagree with the conclusion that because he wasn't really fighting at that point that the altercation (fight) didn't go to the ground.

As the victim was already inebriated, and probably either unconscious or stunned from landing on his head, any skills he might have had were moot at that point.

So while I would maintain that the fight went to the ground, most, if not all, of the arguments in favor of having the skills to fight on the ground are inapplicable to this scenario.

I wholeheartedly concur. Brian VanCise said it best, and this is certainly a strong argument against public intoxication and a cautionary tale about being out of control without being around people whom you trust.

 

[Mephisto]

Good comment, but it took a moment to parse the typo and realize that you meant skillset. I was trying to figure out how hitting someone with a frying pan was the less lethal option.

haha, yeah just Reread that post, quit a few typos. That's whst I get for using my phone for this from work!

There is nothing in the article that says anyone had any martial art background and in this instance the fight did not, by any account, go to the ground. One person, was 'flipped' to the ground and then was kicked to the head and stomped. Now what I teach is exactly for this scenario which is when you are on the ground and your opponent is standing or worse still kicking. That is not 'ground game', at least not for me. Ground game for me is when both are on the ground.

Reality based systems don't 'hate on sport'. That is rubbish. Sport MA is as valid as any other MA. Some of us are saying that sport based sparring has little if any value in our training. That is not anti-sport and we are not missing out on anything. I have three principal styles. Karate, Krav and Aikido. In each of those styles you have a full range of techniques from the fence where you don't want to engage, to the locks and holds which are restraints, to joint destruction and finally lethal technique. Your statement, "Not every physical altercation justifies killing or maiming a man", is quite correct but totally out of context. You don't need to train a sport based system to have non-lethal techniques. I would suggest my training is both alive and combative and quite capable of a wide range of applications.
:asian:

As has been said at this point, it was a ground fighting situation. The guy may have been ko'd upon contact with the ground here, we don't really know. This incident is just a frame of reference for discussion. A lot of time in ground fighting is devoted to defense from the ground with a standing opponent. Safely getting up is one such technique every martial artist should know. Not sure how sport based sparring has little value for you. If you train punching you'd surely benefit from boxing, if you kick than you'd benefit from Muay thai, and if you train takedowns you'd benefit from wrestling. These are all basic skills and the sports practitioners are the best at them. Im glad to hear you consider sport ma as valid as any other art, surprisingly there are a lot who don't give sport the credit it deserves. I agree you don't need a sport system to have non lethal techniques, but we often hear people down at sports because they have rules. Some guys think they'll just eye gouge and nut kick a grappler, you might not be one of those people but I'm sure you've seen those arguments. Sport is often just basic technique, you can easily modify it to do greater harm, many systems have it, sport just represents the pinnacle of specialized training and conditioning, give the competitors credit. Few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or boxer, use all the deadly technique you want, a competitive athlete has a distinct advantage.

 

[K-man]

don't get me wrong. I like you. i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate. It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.

Hey go easy. Stubborn and obstinate are loveable English traits. They sure worked against the Nazis!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Hey go easy. Stubborn and obstinate are loveable English traits. They sure worked against the Nazis!

Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.

 

[Tez3]

I'm determined NOT to take offense, but passive aggressive behavior is on my short list of buttons to push. Couple of things. 1: Whether or not it's a martial arts issue, grappling was involved. 2: Acknowledging that there was grappling involved doesn't make my position "all about the grappling." That's just the part on which you chose to fixate. And 3: Being rude is as much a cultural thing as language. In my family, and in my community, your current behavior would be considered very rude.

I understood your post the first time you posted it. You asserted that the article didn't give enough information to conclude that they were grappling. It did, and I pointed out specifically where. You were incorrect. You then argued that grappling isn't a verb. It is, and I shared the definition with you. And then you argued I was using the term incorrectly. I wasn't, and now you acknowledge that I am using the term correctly, albeit via Kman.

don't get me wrong. I like you. i just wish you weren't so damned stubborn and obstinate. It's worth it to get to the end, though, and usually we end up on the same side.

Stubborn and obstinate are the same thing and I'm neither, the problem is that you read into what I write something that no one else does, and I mean no one else. You see, you have it wrong about what I agreed with K Man, I was agreeing that there was confusion, nothing more but you chose to think I meant something else that I agreed with you, I wasn't.

My career training kicks in when I see reports of criminal actions, as I said, I see things differently from a martial artist. I see a need for precision in describing in what happened, what exactly happened, merely saying they were grappling doesn't satisfy I'm afraid. the action decides what charges would be brought, grappling implies a two handed tussle, a grappling move by one implies just one person did it so my mind is thinking of charges, blame etc. It's the way my mind works, after forty odd years it's ingrained, it was that way before I started martial arts and it will be that way until I die.

 

[K-man]

Safely getting up is one such technique every martial artist should know. Not sure how sport based sparring has little value for you. If you train punching you'd surely benefit from boxing, if you kick than you'd benefit from Muay thai, and if you train takedowns you'd benefit from wrestling. These are all basic skills and the sports practitioners are the best at them.

Few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or boxer, use all the deadly technique you want, a competitive athlete has a distinct advantage.

Safely getting up is part of our training. Training powerful punching has little really to do with boxing. Boxers are just specialist users of that technique. I did some boxing many years ago and we certainly didn't have the specialist punching training we have in karate. As to Muay Thai kicking, great. It is part and parcel of Krav but we don't have to spar Muay Thai to use their techniques. Wrestling takedowns, like judo have very little place in our training. Aikido had only one throw that I would never use in real life, karate has none. In Krav, I have never seen a throw taught but as Krav is a dynamic system any technique is available to use in any situation.

I would agree that few could defend themselves against a world class BJJ champ or Boxer but there is another factor here. I am totally unlikely to be fighting such a person but were that situation to occur I would be fighting for my life, something a sport fighter has never had to do. That levels the field.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.

Compared to Poms, we are all rank amateurs.

 

[Steve]

Stubborn and obstinate are the same thing and I'm neither, the problem is that you read into what I write something that no one else does, and I mean no one else. You see, you have it wrong about what I agreed with K Man, I was agreeing that there was confusion, nothing more but you chose to think I meant something else that I agreed with you, I wasn't.

So, when you say, "K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here," you mean "K-man is correct that there was confusion, nothing more?" Yeah. Without asking the larger group, I think two things are true. One, you are stubborn. And two, when you say, "K man is correct by the way on what is being meant by grapple here," I am not the only person who would interpret that to mean that you agree with K man's definition of the term "grapple."

My career training kicks in when I see reports of criminal actions, as I said, I see things differently from a martial artist. I see a need for precision in describing in what happened, what exactly happened, merely saying they were grappling doesn't satisfy I'm afraid. the action decides what charges would be brought, grappling implies a two handed tussle, a grappling move by one implies just one person did it so my mind is thinking of charges, blame etc. It's the way my mind works, after forty odd years it's ingrained, it was that way before I started martial arts and it will be that way until I die.

I got all of this the first time you wrote it. This exchange between us isn't because I didn't understand or care to understand your posts. It's quite the opposite. You jumped to a conclusion and even now stubbornly refuse to acknowledge your mistake. You didn't understand or care to understand what I was really saying.

1: The article remains descriptive enough to conclude that grappling was involved based specifically on what was said.
2: Grappling is still not the sole purview of martial artists.
3: My position was not "all about the grappling" although it may seem so based upon this back and forth.
4: And grappling remains both a noun AND a verb. Using the term as a verb is not a quaint American trait. I notice you use the term as a verb yourself when you're not thinking about it.

And if you believe that the term "grappling" (a verb, mind you) implies a two handed tussle, I don't kow what to tell you. I've never heard anyone suggest that grappling must necessarily be a tussle involving two hands. I've also never heard of a one-person grapple.

 

[Steve]

Hey! Are you implying that stubborn and obstinate aren't American traits? Them's fighting words, pardner.

What?? I've NEVER been called stubborn... :uhoh:

 

[Tez3]

Actually I would describe myself as bloody exasperated. We have had so many of these 'discussions', with you being offended, with you thinking I mean something, with you telling me I'm wrong else etc etc etc.
Yep exasperated certainly describes me. Bloody hell people might start thinking we are married.

 

[Steve]

Actually I would describe myself as bloody exasperated. We have had so many of these 'discussions', with you being offended, with you thinking I mean something, with you telling me I'm wrong else etc etc etc.
Yep exasperated certainly describes me. Bloody hell people might start thinking we are married.

Haha. Well you always come around to agreeing with me in the end. Save us some trouble and start there and we are good.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

By the account in the newspaper he was very intoxicated so it's doubtful he could intelligently defend himself. Alcohol can make the best fighter in the world useless. Has anyone noticed that the article doesn't say exactly who put him on the floor? We are left to assume it's the guy who pushed but it doesn't say so.

Not necessarily. Based on the level of intoxication, and personal level of experience, even someone legally drunk can still perform trained movements if they're highly skilled. I would even argue that an intoxicated state makes one more resistant to hard blows and impacts because their body tends to be more relaxed and less tense.

 

[K-man]

Not necessarily. Based on the level of intoxication, and personal level of experience, even someone legally drunk can still perform trained movements if they're highly skilled. I would even argue that an intoxicated state makes one more resistant to hard blows and impacts because their body tends to be more relaxed and less tense.

Legally drunk here is over 0.05 . That is not what we are talking about. The guy killed was drunk and not trained. The guy who killed him had been drinking also and that may have impaired his reasoning. What you are arguing here is the exception rather than the rule. The reason we are having this discussion is because of the number of deaths we have had in Australia of people who have been drinking, by people who have been drinking. They call it "alcohol fuelled violence". Most of the deaths have been drunk people hitting their heads on hard surfaces, not stomping on heads. Thus one will be dealt with harshly, as an example, I suspect.

 

[Hanzou]

Legally drunk here is over 0.05 . That is not what we are talking about. The guy killed was drunk and not trained. The guy who killed him had been drinking also and that may have impaired his reasoning. What you are arguing here is the exception rather than the rule. The reason we are having this discussion is because of the number of deaths we have had in Australia of people who have been drinking, by people who have been drinking. They call it "alcohol fuelled violence". Most of the deaths have been drunk people hitting their heads on hard surfaces, not stomping on heads. Thus one will be dealt with harshly, as an example, I suspect.

I thought we were having this discussion because you somehow wanted to tie this to "anti-grappling", when in fact, knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.

A friend of mine his son was killed when his son was on the ground and people kicked on his son's head. There were too much blood in his son's skull even the ER doctor gave up. He told me that if he would let his son to train with me, his son may still be alive today.

IMO, how to protect your head from kicking and punching both in stand up game and in ground game is extremely important. It's life and death situation and should be treated seriously.

 

[K-man]

I thought we were having this discussion because you somehow wanted to tie this to "anti-grappling", when in fact, knowing some grappling may have saved this kid's life.

This has nothing to do with anti-grappling. There is nothing to suggest that any of them had any sort of MA training and even if the poor guy that died did know some grappling, being drunk would negate a lot of his ability.