Sport vs. Street

[Steve]

Um. No. Both combatants had plenty of opportunity to leave, and both chose to stay and fight. It was a street fight, not self-defense. If you have a different view of that, please explain it, because all you've done so far is make unsupported statements, and that doesn't get our discussion anywhere.

Is having an opportunity to leave a defining characteristic of "self defense?" If one has an opportunity to leave and doesn't, does that shift a situation to something other than self defense?

I thought we all agreed that self defense is a term that applies to a legal defense where you have done something illegal, such as assault or murder.

How does this "ability to leave" test apply to cops or bouncers? I once suggested that what a cop encounters isn't self defense, but was taken to the woodshed.

 

[FriedRice]

No, because if you did not do a weapon sweep and they wake up they can still shoot you. I always assume a couple of things, one he wants to kill me, he has friends, three he has a weapon and four he will fight dirty.

Are you serious? You're saying that someone who you just knocked out cold and lying on the ground unconscious, needs to be swept for weapons in order for you to safely walk, run or even briskly jog way or something? And if you're so scared of the movie possibilities of other attackers nearby, wouldn't it be a bad idea to get on your knees and feel up some dude (that may have friends) that's snoring on the cement?

See your approach is a ring setting knock outs, squaring off, trading punches, you don't have the intent or mindset to kill, I on the other hand am coming to fight to kill or be killed so when you square off in your fighting stance I'm waiting for you to come in so I can stab you. Just like my video I posted showing a guy let's say a grappler and I'm in top mound stabbing repeatly. .

If things look fishy, I'd just back up draw my 9mm. Tactical enough for you?

What I want you to be aware of is some people simply will do what ever it takes in a fight including kill if need be and that is the difference between a sport fighter and a kill or be killed mindset. Anyway we most likely will never agree whatever you think works for you great go for it. I choose the most pussyfooting arts like taijiquan and things as my martial arts because it's not the art it's the mindset.

I've shot at and have been shot at before, do these count?

 

[Steve]

Just like I said, I'm not talking about legal definitions.

Oh, and it's worth noting that "stand your ground" provisions are far from universal. In some states, there still exists a "duty to retreat". Certainly mouthing off for a while before re-engaging reduces the legal defensibility of the action.

Oh, so self defense in this thread is something other than a legal term. Hard to keep up.

 

[Paul_D]

= you don't know what you were arguing about?

Actually I was just bowing out gracefully as I can't be arsed to discuss anything with you further. You have steadfastly refused to listen to anything anyone else has said that does not correspond 100% with your own thoughts. Even when numerous people all tell you the same thing, you refuse to accept you may be mistaken, or even that other people may hold differing views to your own. We all get like that from time to time, including me, but with you it's 100% of the time.

You are not here to learn from others who are wiser and more experienced, hell you're not even here to listen to what anyone else has to say. You have no intention of considering differing points of view in an attempt to learn or re-examine your own view point.

You are simply here to be obtuse and obstreperous, further you are incapable of formulating a coherent counter argument to pretty much all of the time, and so stoop to accusing people of "making up" words, concepts and things.

I'd get more of a coherent discussion from my cat.

But yeah, tell yourself I don't know what I'm talking about if it makes you feel better, and makes you think you "won", because "winning" arguments rather than learning from discussions seems to be he only reason you are here.

Also, welcome to ignore list. If you're not sure what that means, it means I have clicked the option to ignore all of your posts. Which means your posts won't show up on the site for me. Nor will I receive an alert when you reply to this, or any other post I make. So enjoy arguing to yourself, as that's what you will be doing. I won't see what your reply to this, or fortunately anything else you post on the site.

 

[FriedRice]

I'm not talking about the legal definition. He stayed when he could have left, when the other person was not attacking him. That is not looking out for one's protection at that point.

That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So mutually agreed upon fight here then. Because the cleaner could have left.
Cleaner's desperate fight with armed robber in Townsville bowling alley caught on video

No, he didn't hang around and mouth off for a period of time. He chose to defend in that location (his place of work). There's a different dynamic here (part of that grey area I mentioned earlier). He could have left, but would have left others (I assume) to the robber. It's like when you are working the door and deal with someone. It's not a mutually agreed fight when you start moving them out (as this guy did) because you're not asking to fight, just controlling the situation. When he then escalates to violence (as this robber did), you respond with defense. That's not the same as if you were in a parking lot and some guy mouthed off and you hung around mouthing off back until it escalated. Nor would it be the same as if someone punched you, you two were separated, and you then got free and went after him. Once the attack is ended, it's no longer self-defense.

In a place of work or your home, the dynamic is different, because that's someplace you really shouldn't have to leave because of a threat.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's your personal rules of conduct and how you personally define, SD. Obviously, not those guys in the 1st fight of that video.

I think it's a relatively common definition of SD. If you have a different one, I'm listening. So far, you've shot down ideas but not presented much of your own.

 

[CB Jones]

Like I just said, look up "Stand You Ground" provisions.

Stand Your Ground Laws are state laws and are different for every state.


On a side note, this thread is confusing enough that I'm pretty sure it's giving me a brain bleed.

 

[drop bear]

Where did I ever say self-defense was a script. I've said quite the opposite a number of times. I'm not sure what you mean by "manufactured concept". Self-defense is, indeed, a concept - most things people discuss are such. It's fairly easy to agree upon a working definition if one is not being argumentative. That situation was clearly self-defense, though we'd have to question whether it transitioned to something else near the end. There's definitely some grey area where it's hard to draw the line - that's true of all concepts.

Self defence is fitting whatever terms you seem to want to make it. Based on your own opinion.

Which makes any argument of self defence void pretty much. Because it is determined by your own impression of what self defence is. It would be like asking at this point what fight was prettier. You just decide.

And then to suggest it is easy just to go with your impression of what is self defence is probably not going to happen.

You are even determining whether a person could have removed themselves from a fight without knowing anything about that fight.

There is a legal determination of self defence and there is a legal determination of amicable contest. Which you throw out the window for your determination of both.

Now the legal term is manufactured. Someone just came up with the idea. Then you manufactured,came up with a new idea, a different version of self defence that applies to you.

And are having issues with other people being argumentitive?

 

[FriedRice]

Just like I said, I'm not talking about legal definitions.

Then you're merely expressing your own opinion, for your own self which is irrelevant to those people in the video and myself who don't agree with you as to what SD is.

Oh, and it's worth noting that "stand your ground" provisions are far from universal. In some states, there still exists a "duty to retreat". Certainly mouthing off for a while before re-engaging reduces the legal defensibility of the action.

I didn't say they were universal.

 

[FriedRice]

Actually I was just bowing out gracefully as I can't be arsed to discuss anything with you further. You have steadfastly refused to listen to anything anyone else has said that does not correspond 100% with your own thoughts. Even when numerous people all tell you the same thing, you refuse to accept you may be mistaken, or even that other people may hold differing views to your own. We all get like that from time to time, including me, but with you it's 100% of the time.

You are not here to learn from others who are wiser and more experienced, hell you're not even here to listen to what anyone else has to say. You have no intention of considering differing points of view in an attempt to learn or re-examine your own view point.

You are simply here to be obtuse and obstreperous, further you are incapable of formulating a coherent counter argument to pretty much all of the time, and so stoop to accusing people of "making up" words, concepts and things.

I'd get more of a coherent discussion from my cat.

But yeah, tell yourself I don't know what I'm talking about if it makes you feel better, and makes you think you "won", because "winning" arguments rather than learning from discussions seems to be he only reason you are here.

Also, welcome to ignore list. If you're not sure what that means, it means I have clicked the option to ignore all of your posts. Which means your posts won't show up on the site for me. Nor will I receive an alert when you reply to this, or any other post I make. So enjoy arguing to yourself, as that's what you will be doing. I won't see what your reply to this, or fortunately anything else you post on the site.

Skimming through this, I just see a bunch of complaints. Most people with better things to do, just put me on ignore w/o the farewell speech.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is having an opportunity to leave a defining characteristic of "self defense?" If one has an opportunity to leave and doesn't, does that shift a situation to something other than self defense?

I thought we all agreed that self defense is a term that applies to a legal defense where you have done something illegal, such as assault or murder.

How does this "ability to leave" test apply to cops or bouncers? I once suggested that what a cop encounters isn't self defense, but was taken to the woodshed.

To some extent, the ability to exit does shift things. It's not a hard line (like the video DB posted).

I'm not one to stick to the legal definition. I'm talking about the same concept the legal definition is, but it's far more nuanced than the law can easily handle in writing. If I am attacked, and can safely leave the situation without leaving others in danger, it is not self-defense (the concept) to remain and fight. Change any of the assumptions (no known escape route, others may be left in danger), and that changes everything. There's also another side that's hard to define. It has to do with "should". Someone shouldn't have to leave their home - it's most people's sanctum. So, the best defense of self might still be to leave, but I have a hard time saying someone isn't defending themselves when they choose to not be driven from their home. And I'm not sure why I can't draw a line there - it just should be that way, IMO. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for a place of work.

As for cops and bouncers, this is where some of the discussion gets off the rails. Some of what they do isn't strictly self-defense. Much of it ends up being self-defense (when someone attacks them for doing their job). In either case, much of the technique they use can also be applied in self-defense situations by others (assuming the same tools in a given situation). Their choices will be different, as are some of their goals, and they have different choices to make. Both groups took jobs where they essentially agreed not to escape as often as the pure concept of self-defense would suggest. I think we can reasonably agree that there's still an element of self-defense in that situation, when someone is trying to hurt them.

 

[drop bear]

No, he didn't hang around and mouth off for a period of time. He chose to defend in that location (his place of work). There's a different dynamic here (part of that grey area I mentioned earlier). He could have left, but would have left others (I assume) to the robber. It's like when you are working the door and deal with someone. It's not a mutually agreed fight when you start moving them out (as this guy did) because you're not asking to fight, just controlling the situation. When he then escalates to violence (as this robber did), you respond with defense. That's not the same as if you were in a parking lot and some guy mouthed off and you hung around mouthing off back until it escalated. Nor would it be the same as if someone punched you, you two were separated, and you then got free and went after him. Once the attack is ended, it's no longer self-defense.

In a place of work or your home, the dynamic is different, because that's someplace you really shouldn't have to leave because of a threat.

Yeah. look work on your theory and get back to me. in the mean time I will just call everything that is a fight a fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh, so self defense in this thread is something other than a legal term. Hard to keep up.

Agreed. I do see folks standing on the legal definition. I have no problem with that, but I come from the conceptual side. It's harder to define, and leads to more disagreements, so maybe there's a good reason some folks choose to stick to the legal definition on such a contentious topic.

 

[CB Jones]

If most people are putting you on ignore that should tell you something.


Reminds me of a qoute from Paul Thorn, "if you can't get a Jehovah Witness to have a conversation with you....it's time to brush up on your social skills."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. look work on your theory and get back to me. in the mean time I will just call everything that is a fight a fight.

I'm actually okay with that usage, DB. I tend to draw a distinction between a mutually-agreed fight (and there is room for disagreement as to what that is, of course), versus attacks (which lead to self-defense). Both often involve fighting, so calling both of them fights is appropriate. Others will disagree.

 

[FriedRice]

I think it's a relatively common definition of SD. If you have a different one, I'm listening. So far, you've shot down ideas but not presented much of your own.

Mine is to stay within the confines of the local law's definition of SD, by a healthy margin, just to be on the safe side. And part of the benefits of training and sparring full power for knockouts for over 10 years, is that it made me so used to physical violence, that I'm very calm and collect during confrontations... that I wouldn't freak out and go "full retard" on someone.....over some little thing in the street and risk manslaughter charges or worse, 2nd degree murder.

 

[Buka]

As Billy Crystal used to ask on SNL, who is muy macho? Ricardo Montalban or Fernando Lamas?

 

[FriedRice]

If most people are putting you on ignore that should tell you something.

Good riddance. That guy's schtick is just the same 'ol same 'ol SD one. And I actually train Krav Maga, so I can smell larping a mile away.

 

[FriedRice]

Stand Your Ground Laws are state laws and are different for every state.

On a side note, this thread is confusing enough that I'm pretty sure it's giving me a brain bleed.

Yes, I know this. That's why in non-Stand Your Ground states, I usually do this:

And also, the laws can be very much against "trained killers" such as myself in my camou pants and combat boots, all seasons attire....when claiming self defense before the Judge. This also would bring up the Lawyer factor and how much one can afford, making a big difference.