Wing Chun in street fight

[KamonGuy2]

Interesting topic. Ive had too many confrontations for my own good and not all of them ended happily, but the key to surviving was mainly just to keep the pressure on (rather than let the attacker regain his thoughts)

There is an argument for and against emotional content within fights. Some say fear keeps you alive and others have the 30 second blast rule (just go at the opponent with full on rage for 30 seconds etc). Others argue that if you figt with anger you lose focus and technical skill

I think it really comes down to the individual and what style they train. Wing chun requires the muscles to have a degree of relaxation which is hard to do if the individual is angry (anger usually means tension). Ive always thought of the forms as a good way of training that calmness (performing techniques without emotion etc)

 

[BloodMoney]

Ok first of all the police don't decide who goes to court and who doesn't, they don't make that judgement, the Crown Proscecution Service do. If you read the laws on self defence yes you will find that fear, circumstances etc are all to be taken into consideration which is why they don't get prosecuted in the first place. The police will always question everyone involved and take statements, often this is mistaken by laymen for being arrested or being blamed but it's not. No one has been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves however much damage they may have done to their attacker despite what you might read in the tabloids here.

Always? no one? I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it, but the reality is if you really think NO ONE has ever been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves then you live in an interesting fantasy world mate. Im not going to list of all the many stories I have to convince you, but I can assure you when it comes to the law and courts always and no one dont come into it. Individual police can distort facts or reports (they have a very big part to play in you being charged, despite you asserting they dont decide who goes to court, they decide who to arrest and therefore who goes to court) and individual judges can sentence people differently. I think you are generalizing far too much, either that or the UK is a magical land of justice for all where no one is ever unfairly prosecuted (in which case I would love to live there!).

Interesting topic. Ive had too many confrontations for my own good and not all of them ended happily, but the key to surviving was mainly just to keep the pressure on (rather than let the attacker regain his thoughts)

Agreed 100% Thats kind of my point, that aggressively attacking in order to defend yourself (instead of controlling techniques, or just blocking and backing away etc) is frowned upon, or in some cases will get you arrested. The reason being is because Chun looks vicious (at least, it should if done right). Running at someone chain punching as fast as you can does not look like passive defense, and well to be honest it isnt.

I nearly got in a whole lot of trouble for "keeping the pressure on". I had the cops searching for me after an incident at a party where about 6 guys accosted me. They threw the first punches, where clearly in gang mentality and outnumbered me 6 to 1, let alone the fact they had been causing trouble at the party all night. Eventually they caused trouble with the wrong person (me) and took swings, I put down Alpha Male and his sidekick quickly. Suddenly the police are called and chaos ensues. One of the thugs has a broken nose and is laid out on the ground, the other a few nice lumps on his face and is yelling etc, and I dont have a scratch so I must have been the bad guy and put the "cheap shots" in (to be fair I did use cheap tactics, chain punching ). I got out of there fast. Then I get told by friends from the party that the cops were searching for me for ages and asking round my name etc, as I had "disturbed the peace". Some witnesses said I "violently attacked them" (I only chainpunched, no other move, and as soon as one was down I left him) and was "starting trouble" (they attacked me out of the blue and I tried verbally calming the situation, to no effect). Guess who those witnesses where? The friends of the two guys I put down. Despite my other friends explaining the situation (it was a racially motivated attack) the cops still were out for me, and continued for some time. Lucky I dont have faith in our system and didnt stick around otherwise I would have been arrested.

I could give a thousand other examples, including doormen being arrested on duty for defending the bar against multiple attackers, an instructor being jailed for knocking out a guy who attacked him randomly in the street with a hammer etc...

 

[zepedawingchun]

I had a friend 20 years ago who was a blackbelt in Hapkido at the time. He went to a party, was having a good time, drinking and enjoying himself. While he was there, a guy who was drunk, started picking on him (my friend was 5'9" about 160 lbs. and the other guy was 6'1", 225 lbs. or so), pushing him around. My friennd told him he needed to cut it out or he might get hurt. But the guy kept pushing. Finally, the big guy pushed him, threw a couple of punches at my friend. Well, my friend blocked them all and returned just one punch to the guy, hit him in the face. The big guy fell down like a rock, but hit his head on the corner of a very hard table. . . . cracked his head open and it killed the guy.

My friend ended up going to prison for 7 years, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter. No consideration of self defense what so ever. The judge giving some ******** excuse, claimed because my friend was a trained martial artist, he should have been able to control the situation (his punch) so the big guy wouldn't have fallen and hit his head.

You have to be careful what you say, sometimes. I think because my friend warned the guy first, then something ensued, that the police and the court thought my friend was determined to hurt the guy, sort of setting up the situation, and looking to get into a fight. Which my friend was not. He was a pretty happy go lucky guy up to that time.

 

[BloodMoney]

I had a friend 20 years ago who was a blackbelt in Hapkido at the time. He went to a party, was having a good time, drinking and enjoying himself. While he was there, a guy who was drunk, started picking on him (my friend was 5'9" about 160 lbs. and the other guy was 6'1", 225 lbs. or so), pushing him around. My friennd told him he needed to cut it out or he might get hurt. But the guy kept pushing. Finally, the big guy pushed him, threw a couple of punches at my friend. Well, my friend blocked them all and returned just one punch to the guy, hit him in the face. The big guy fell down like a rock, but hit his head on the corner of a very hard table. . . . cracked his head open and it killed the guy.

My friend ended up going to prison for 7 years, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter. No consideration of self defense what so ever. The judge giving some ******** excuse, claimed because my friend was a trained martial artist, he should have been able to control the situation (his punch) so the big guy wouldn't have fallen and hit his head.

You have to be careful what you say, sometimes. I think because my friend warned the guy first, then something ensued, that the police and the court thought my friend was determined to hurt the guy, sort of setting up the situation, and looking to get into a fight. Which my friend was not. He was a pretty happy go lucky guy up to that time.

Clearly this didnt happen in the UK, or the police would have praised him for his efforts and the judge would have level headedly seen the situation for what it was

Seriously though, that is horrible, and just the kind of example I was trying to extrapolate on. How do you control just one punch? How do you know the guy you punch has a glass jaw? Was the onus on your friend to just calmly restrain the much larger aggressor, thereby risking his own life? This is exactly what I was talking about, a good example, if the word good can indeed be used in such a ******** situation.

 

[Tez3]

Always? no one? I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it, but the reality is if you really think NO ONE has ever been taken to court for genuinely defending themselves then you live in an interesting fantasy world mate. Im not going to list of all the many stories I have to convince you, but I can assure you when it comes to the law and courts always and no one dont come into it. Individual police can distort facts or reports (they have a very big part to play in you being charged, despite you asserting they dont decide who goes to court, they decide who to arrest and therefore who goes to court) and individual judges can sentence people differently. I think you are generalizing far too much, either that or the UK is a magical land of justice for all where no one is ever unfairly prosecuted (in which case I would love to live there!).







Agreed 100% Thats kind of my point, that aggressively attacking in order to defend yourself (instead of controlling techniques, or just blocking and backing away etc) is frowned upon, or in some cases will get you arrested. The reason being is because Chun looks vicious (at least, it should if done right). Running at someone chain punching as fast as you can does not look like passive defense, and well to be honest it isnt.

I nearly got in a whole lot of trouble for "keeping the pressure on". I had the cops searching for me after an incident at a party where about 6 guys accosted me. They threw the first punches, where clearly in gang mentality and outnumbered me 6 to 1, let alone the fact they had been causing trouble at the party all night. Eventually they caused trouble with the wrong person (me) and took swings, I put down Alpha Male and his sidekick quickly. Suddenly the police are called and chaos ensues. One of the thugs has a broken nose and is laid out on the ground, the other a few nice lumps on his face and is yelling etc, and I dont have a scratch so I must have been the bad guy and put the "cheap shots" in (to be fair I did use cheap tactics, chain punching ). I got out of there fast. Then I get told by friends from the party that the cops were searching for me for ages and asking round my name etc, as I had "disturbed the peace". Some witnesses said I "violently attacked them" (I only chainpunched, no other move, and as soon as one was down I left him) and was "starting trouble" (they attacked me out of the blue and I tried verbally calming the situation, to no effect). Guess who those witnesses where? The friends of the two guys I put down. Despite my other friends explaining the situation (it was a racially motivated attack) the cops still were out for me, and continued for some time. Lucky I dont have faith in our system and didnt stick around otherwise I would have been arrested.

I could give a thousand other examples, including doormen being arrested on duty for defending the bar against multiple attackers, an instructor being jailed for knocking out a guy who attacked him randomly in the street with a hammer etc...

Firstly, I'm not 'mate'. Secondly, you are talking about a different country from mine, your experiences are different from what happens here mostly it would seem because of your seemingly more violent than normal lifestyle.. Please don't tell me either what my job is, the police don't have as much to say as you seem to think, and justice is often a case of how much money is available to proscecute. There's much more likilihood of criminals getting away with things than there is of people being done for defending themselves. Arresting someone doesn't mean they will be charged and taken to court, the CPS will decide that on what evidence there is not all of it police evidence either. It is actually frustrating to the police that known criminals and known offenders are not being taken to court. Self defence doesn't come up nearly as often as you imagine it does in fights etc.
Perhaps the rather violent lifestyle you seem to lead makes you somewhat biased. The police can only go on what's put in front of them, if they aren't witnesses themselves what else is there to go on.

 

[WC_lun]

Honestly if you defend yourself the chance of you getting prosecuted depends upon a few things. Did you use an amount of force reasonable to the situation? Was there an out other than force? Prior acts on your part. If you are a known trouble maker you are gonna get charged quicker than someone with no record. What the prosecutor feels like doing. Some prosecutors will charge someone at the drop of a hat trying to make a name for themselves. Others are more realistic and more interested injustice.

I had an aquantance that shot a man dead as he opened up his front door. The man had come to rob the place and as he pried the door open, my aquantance shot him. No charges were filed.

I had another aquantance that worked as a bouncer in a local bar. A patron got drunk and started causing trouble. He pulled a knife on my bouncer friend and my bouncer friend hit him. He knocked out a few of his teeth and broke his jaw. Bouncer friend spent 18 months in jail for it.

I had to defend myself from an attack while waiting for the bus. There was a witness who called 911 and an ambulance. police got there very quick and I got to spend about 30 minutes in the back of a squad car. The cops released me with an atta boy and questions about what I had trained in.

Bottom line is you never know, so commit violence as a last resort. If you have to defend yourself then do what is neccesary and deal with whatever consequences come about. I hate the phrase "Better to be judged by 10 than carried by 8," because it sounds cavalier towards violence, but it is true. A good rule of thumb I tell guys I train is if its your ego that's gonna get bruised then walk away. If you or someone close to you is gonna get bruised, then do what you gotta do.

 

[KamonGuy2]

My input on this...

I live in the UK and know (for a fact - but cant discuss how on an open forum) that even those who genuinely defend themselves will often be scrutinized. It is part of a police investigation to examine both sides and then take the evidence to the CPS for them to decide whether the case will go to court etc

Innocent people who are attacked and then defend themselves, resulting in the attackers getting injured will often be subject to scrutiny

Of course there is a difference between a person defending himself (controlling their attacker and knocking them out etc) and a person carrying it on so that the guy is left in a bloody heap on the floor

Its always hard to decide proportionality in confrontations. I have been approached many times in clubs by drunk guys and would be hardmen who want to try it on. Usually it is down to problems in their lives (girlfriend left them etc) and for that, I do feel some kind of pity. It is also that which would make it tragic if a martial artist took them apart. Sure, no one should be starting fights, no matter how bad their life is, but at the same time it would be horrible to think that the guy got hurt badly because of it

In comparison, if a guy came at me with a knife or gun and the only option was to end his life, then as someone else has said, it is better to survive and be judged by a court of his peers, than to be shot or stabbed

If someone takes a weapon onto the street, then my belief is that they have lost all rights to be dealt with as a human being

 

[jks9199]

Clearly this didnt happen in the UK, or the police would have praised him for his efforts and the judge would have level headedly seen the situation for what it was

Seriously though, that is horrible, and just the kind of example I was trying to extrapolate on. How do you control just one punch? How do you know the guy you punch has a glass jaw? Was the onus on your friend to just calmly restrain the much larger aggressor, thereby risking his own life? This is exactly what I was talking about, a good example, if the word good can indeed be used in such a ******** situation.

You take your victim as you find them is the general rule. It's your bad luck if you attack someone who's got a hidden vulnerability. I don't really know all the details of the case presented, nor of the defense presented in court. On the topic of defense in court -- my advice is always simple: Hire the best attorney, experienced in that facet of the law, that you can beg or borrow enough money to afford when your life or your liberty are at risk.

 

[jks9199]

My input on this...

I live in the UK and know (for a fact - but cant discuss how on an open forum) that even those who genuinely defend themselves will often be scrutinized. It is part of a police investigation to examine both sides and then take the evidence to the CPS for them to decide whether the case will go to court etc

Innocent people who are attacked and then defend themselves, resulting in the attackers getting injured will often be subject to scrutiny

Of course there is a difference between a person defending himself (controlling their attacker and knocking them out etc) and a person carrying it on so that the guy is left in a bloody heap on the floor

Its always hard to decide proportionality in confrontations. I have been approached many times in clubs by drunk guys and would be hardmen who want to try it on. Usually it is down to problems in their lives (girlfriend left them etc) and for that, I do feel some kind of pity. It is also that which would make it tragic if a martial artist took them apart. Sure, no one should be starting fights, no matter how bad their life is, but at the same time it would be horrible to think that the guy got hurt badly because of it

In comparison, if a guy came at me with a knife or gun and the only option was to end his life, then as someone else has said, it is better to survive and be judged by a court of his peers, than to be shot or stabbed

If someone takes a weapon onto the street, then my belief is that they have lost all rights to be dealt with as a human being

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying I did something that would ordinarily be illegal -- but I was justified in committing an assault & battery (in this instance) because I was attacked first.

The police should investigate it and make sure that the proper person gets locked up. It's their duty.

 

[KamonGuy2]

Self defense is an affirmative defense; you're saying I did something that would ordinarily be illegal -- but I was justified in committing an assault & battery (in this instance) because I was attacked first.

The police should investigate it and make sure that the proper person gets locked up. It's their duty.

Not always so. The police would look at the degree of injury on both parties, especially if there are no witnesses

If someone 'attacked' you and you ended up breaking their arm, you would probably end up getting arrested, especially if the other party wanted to press charges

What usually happens in these instances is that the aggressor does not want to procede in making statements etc, because they know that they would get into trouble as well

The law is not always cut and dry and I know of numerous instances where people have gotten into trouble because they defended themselves 'too much'!

Personally I feel that the defensive party should be given the benefit of the doubt most of the time, but there are occasions where it is hard to decide what exactly happened and who was to blame

 

[wtxs]

If someone takes a weapon onto the street, then my belief is that they have lost all rights to be dealt with as a human being

Such person has no regard for his own life or any body's, I will not assume as you all shouldn't, that he/she would not go pass the point of taking my life ( intentionally or not) in order to take what they want.
I will stand with others that chanted:soapbox: the cliche "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6".:angry:

 

[Tez3]

Not always so. The police would look at the degree of injury on both parties, especially if there are no witnesses

If someone 'attacked' you and you ended up breaking their arm, you would probably end up getting arrested, especially if the other party wanted to press charges

What usually happens in these instances is that the aggressor does not want to procede in making statements etc, because they know that they would get into trouble as well

The law is not always cut and dry and I know of numerous instances where people have gotten into trouble because they defended themselves 'too much'!

Personally I feel that the defensive party should be given the benefit of the doubt most of the time, but there are occasions where it is hard to decide what exactly happened and who was to blame

It is very hard to tell who was defending themselves and who was attacking especially in street altercations. The police must investigate everyone involved, it's not fair if they don't. Here as well as I've said before being arrested isn't the same thing in every country, here it doesn't mean a huge lot as it does in the States, it may well go no further and you'll be de-arrested. People who are innocent often get very upset at being questioned by the police, I can see their point and do sympathise but there's a lot of people who will attack and say they were defending themselves and the other person attacked them. How do you sort that out if each person is blaming the other, there's no witnesses and drink is involved as it usually is in these cases.

The law here states that if in fear of your life you may attack first and if that force is lethal and you can justify it there will be no charges, the police will of course investigate, you may be arrested as there is a death but the CPS has stated many times they will not take someone to court who is defending themselves in the true belief they are in danger. The police can't take sides whatever people may think, a thorough investigation has to take place. The media like to hype things up and politicians like to jump on the bandwagon so distortions and inaccuracies are reported and made much off. The case of the householder and his brothers who chased down and battered one of the thieves is a case in point. While having sympathy for someone who is the victim of a horrible and terrifying crime, it has to be be realised you can't take the law into your own hands in this way, what if they'd beaten an innocent man who was just passing instead? It's natural enough to want to belt the burglar but did it have to be three against one with cricket bats and iron bars in the street a long way from the home?

It's hard for people to be objective about self defence but they need to see it sometimes from a police officers view and see why investigating everyone is necessary. It's in all our interests that the first person to claim they attacked in self defence or were 'just defending themselves' isn't believed immediately without checking. It could be you they are accusing when you are innocent so its a good job the police look at everything they can.

 

[Rion]

The bottom line is,the police,the judges,the witness they are all human and human beings make mistakes. So no matter how hard the system tries the right people will go down and the wrong people will walk free.

 

[Tez3]

The bottom line is,the police,the judges,the witness they are all human and human beings make mistakes. So no matter how hard the system tries the right people will go down and the wrong people will walk free.

I'm hoping you mean that the other way round? The wrong people go down and the guilty go free. We can only try to do our best to make sure we are prepared if attacked and that we also know the law, so many don't and assume it's what the media says it is, it rarely is. Know your rights, know your self defence and do your best, thats all anyone can do.