What MA cliches wind you up?

[drop bear]

Who said kill? That saying doesn't mean kill. If all it costs to stop the threat is a few broken ribs then you give a few broken ribs. If all it costs is a verbal threat you make the threat. If all if cost to stop the threat to to kill the you kill. No more no less. You use the most force you need no more and no less.

I find it a little odd all these "trained" martial artists can't tell the difference between self defense and murder or assault.

it could certainly imply kill. Even you have said kill.

and hey why take the risk. I mean it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[Reeksta]

if your basing your dislike over nonsence posted on the internet then well on my opinion that's a pretty silly reason.

And I think it's perfectly valid. How about we just agree to disagree?

 

[ballen0351]

And I think it's perfectly valid. How avout we just agree to disagree?

I think it's not perfectly valid. Feel free to agree to disagree anytime

 

[drop bear]

It inconceivable that you all are trained martial artists and can't tell the difference between self defense and committing a crime. Your reading more into the phrase then is actually there. Saying the phrase is equal it "stabbing a guy on the ground" or killing someone just to kill them is silly and I'd hope you were mature enough to know the difference

we can. Which is why the quote rubs people the wrong way. And you are making up assumptions here.

 

[ballen0351]

it could certainly imply kill. Even you have said kill.

It doesn't "imply" anything. And sadly sometimes you have no other choice but to kill.

and hey why take the risk. I mean it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Because it's not either/or. There is more the 2 possible outcomes.

 

[Reeksta]

I think it's not perfectly valid. Feel free to agree to disagree anytime

Pretty sure that's exactly what I suggested but thanks, that's what I'll do

 

[drop bear]

It doesn't "imply" anything. And sadly sometimes you have no other choice but to kill.

Because it's not either/or. There is more the 2 possible outcomes.

it implies committing a crime rather than loosing a fight. It suggests that winning a fight justifies commiting a crime and it only gives you those two options.

 

[ballen0351]

we can. Which is why the quote rubs people the wrong way. And you are making up assumptions here.

I'm not making up assumptions . You have said 2 or 3 times already that you might as well kill them just in case.

So I'll ask you have you ever seen someone use excessive force and then justify it with that quote. Or is this another made up instance like 9 out of 10 use it to justify a kick to the head. When in reality nobody's been kicked at all.

I've actually killed in self defense. It's not done lightly but I wouldn't hesitate to do it again of it was needed. I've also defended myself plenty of times some with just verbal commans, some with OC spray, tasers, batons, kicks, punches, arm bars, wrist locks, throws and take downs, a flash light, even a big metal clipboard once. So see there are lots of choices that don't involve killing. All of which could land you in court depending on the situation. You need to be smart enough to know where the line is and get as close to it as your justified in doing.

 

[ballen0351]

it implies committing a crime rather than loosing a fight. It suggests that winning a fight justifies commiting a crime and it only gives you those two options.

No it doesnt.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not making up assumptions . You have said 2 or 3 times already that you might as well kill them just in case.

So I'll ask you have you ever seen someone use excessive force and then justify it with that quote. Or is this another made up instance like 9 out of 10 use it to justify a kick to the head. When in reality nobody's been kicked at all.

I've actually killed in self defense. It's not done lightly but I wouldn't hesitate to do it again of it was needed. I've also defended myself plenty of times some with just verbal commans, some with OC spray, tasers, batons, kicks, punches, arm bars, wrist locks, throws and take downs, a flash light, even a big metal clipboard once. So see there are lots of choices that don't involve killing. All of which could land you in court depending on the situation. You need to be smart enough to know where the line is and get as close to it as your justified in doing.

yes i have heard people use that term to justify excessive force.

this is not about whether or not you have had to kill people. But whether or not that quote is crass.

 

[ballen0351]

yes i have heard people use that term to justify excessive force.

And did you report it?

But whether or not that quote is crass.

And it's not.....so now thats we settled that. moving right along.

 

[Reeksta]

And it's not.....so now thats we settled that. moving right along

It's not in your opinion. At least 4 of us feel it is.

 

[drop bear]

No it doesnt.

ok then what do you think it means or implies?

where does it mention a third choice?

 

[drop bear]

And did you report it?


And it's not.....so now thats we settled that. moving right along.

because kata?

 

[ballen0351]

It's not in your opinion. At least 4 of us feel it is.

Lol I thought you agreed to disagreed

But according to you you know 9 people that use it out of 10. So that's 9 people that agree with me so your still out numbered

 

[ballen0351]

ok then what do you think it means or implies?

where does it mention a third choice?

I've already said what it means. Keep up bud.

 

[ballen0351]

because kata?

It's a shame I'm in time out around here. I'd like to tell you how I really fell but alas I'm not allowed

 

[jks9199]

How many of you have actually seen someone use excessive force then say it's justified because "better tried by 12 then carried by 6" if your basing your dislike over nonsence posted on the internet then well on my opinion that's a pretty silly reason.

OK, actual use on the street? No.

Use in training halls and seminars? Way too often.

As a response to being called on a blatantly unjustified, illegal, and extreme response in a training setting or discussion? Even more often.

In most cases, it's a bravado phrase. It's used by someone who doesn't understand and isn't willing to accept that there are legal ramifications in a self defense setting. Commonly, it's the guy who's going to start blasting in a situation they don't understand. I tried to search up a few of the threads that it popped up in, but didn't have much luck.

 

[drop bear]

I've already said what it means. Keep up bud.

really. Because if I go back and find you have made more false assumptions.

you said there was a third choice. I haven't read a third choice in that quote. Show me where that it.

 

[Reeksta]

Lol I thought you agreed to disagreed

But according to you you know 9 people that use it out of 10. So that's 9 people that agree with me so your still out numbered

I didn't say that. I said 9 out of 10 people I've heard use it misuse it. If you're gonna try to be facetious you'll have to be more intelligent than that. It would be nice if you could just accept that other people have opinions different to your own instead of being so needlessly rude and confrontational though