cymry Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 Also, would slamming your elbow right under his jaw not stun him at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryLove Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 How about starting outside of range, putting your hands up in front of you and shouting "stop", "stay back", "get away" while doing what you can do to make space between you and leave. If he crosses the distance into your range (how many people just heard and watched you insist he stay back?) then you are reasonable in defending your personal space from incursion (in many juristications).Also, would slamming your elbow right under his jaw not stun him at all?A definate "maybe" https://www.clearsilat.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coudo Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 putting your hands up in front of you and shouting "stop", "stay back", "get away" I'm somewhat confused, didnt cymry kinda mean that he already told the attacker( I know hes not technically an attacker but ill call him that anyway) that he should stay back, atleast i count "verbally diffuse the situation" to telling him to back off."I felt threatened" is not a viable deffence. The most friendly of states fall under "a reasonable person would have felt threatened", and the other end of the specturm includes "couldn't retreat and reacted with the minimum force possible". If you state as your defence that you felt threatend, it will probably be changed to a similar but more resonable defence by a lawyer when dealing with the court.Your state does not believe in witnesses? In civil court, it's a matter of "which stroy is more likely". In criminal court "I was defending myself" is an affirimitve defense and must be proven. My state does believe in witnesses, thats the point. The witnesses cant testify against me(for instance) for punching the guy, while leaving out that I tried to diffuse the situation verbally (unlike in the US), and if the attacker wasnt hurt in any "remarcable" way, you cant possibly be accused of anything. Thus my earlier remarc about the american justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryLove Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 I'm somewhat confused, didnt cymry kinda mean that he already told the attacker( I know hes not technically an attacker but ill call him that anyway) that he should stay back, atleast i count "verbally diffuse the situation" to telling him to back off. Cymry does not (as I recall) make it clear weather the you and your opponent are at elbow range because he's walked up to you, or you to him. Because putting your hand on an approaching opponent's chest will usually either stop him at punching range, or start the swinging; I have been assuming that Cymry was crossing the distance into his opponent's space, and then throwing the first punch. I don't consider this martially sound (as he's exposed himself to being hit with little reacourse in order to get that close) nor legally appropriate (he is initiating the fight).If you state as your defence that you felt threatend, it will probably be changed to a similar but more resonable defence by a lawyer when dealing with the court. The lawys vary heavily by location. If you are the person who advanced into foghting-space, then you failed to retreat. If you threw the first attack (especially after being the person who advanced into theother's space), then you'd better be able to convince quite a few people that you had no other viable choice...My state does believe in witnesses, thats the point. The witnesses cant testify against me(for instance) for punching the guy, while leaving out that I tried to diffuse the situation verbally (unlike in the US) The problem isn't weather you said the words, but weather you appeared to start the fight. I'm guessing you can't walk up to someone at random, say "I don't want to fight", and then slug them across the jaw and expect the "I tried to diffuse the situation" argument to be valid.and if the attacker wasnt hurt in any "remarcable" way, you cant possibly be accused of anything. So I can walik up to you in your juristiction and just hit you and unless I hurt you in a remarkable way, I've not committed any infraction of the law? I find that difficult to believe. https://www.clearsilat.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymry Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 Okay it may be my fault. I give quite ambiguous scenarios. Here goes: You are at a bar with some friends. You get up to go to the bathroom and turn around knocking into the guy (unintentionally) and spilling his beer. You apologise and offer to pay for another one. He just gets mad. He starts yelling at you. You try to calm him down. He grabs your shirt, pulling you forcefully. You cannot escape, and the guy will not listen to your verbal requests. Is that an okay scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryLove Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 hrm.. sorry if this comes out at nit-picking... I'm really just adjusting the scenerio. You are at a bar with some friends. You get up to go to the bathroom and turn around knocking into the guy (unintentionally) and spilling his beer. meaning I already failed to be observant of my surroundings, a bad martial trait You apologise and offer to pay for another one. my hands are already up in a freindly manner, I'm already moving, I'm already putting my back to my friends He just gets mad. He starts yelling at you. I make space, preferrably subtlely, but already with "back up" language if I need to. I'm trying for my best tactical position (I'd like wall behind me and my friends behind him) and I'm serreptitiously locating my weapon and look for an exit You try to calm him down. He grabs your shirt The fight started the moment he reached for it, we are engaged, me screaming "back off, get away". unless I'm really confident he's an idiot I'm either trying to kill him or break something and runIs that an okay scenario? Sure, except that to my thinking, you've repeatedly failed to act to control the situation. You had notice the grab was coming (he got belligerant) and you didn't act on that, and you didn't even act when the grab came (possably partailly because you didn't really get ready too before then). https://www.clearsilat.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymry Posted October 23, 2003 Author Share Posted October 23, 2003 Okay thanks JerryLove. You pointed out a lot of things a lot of us might not think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szorn Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Hi, I am new to this forum but thought I would start by giving my 2-cents to this topic. In the majority of the states the defender has the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to stop the attacker, up to and including the amount of force that the attacker intends to us on the defender. If the attacker states that he intends to kill you and if it can be proven that he had the mind-set and the ability to do so, you can respond in like. In such situations pre-emptive striking is both logical and legal. You can nit-pick all of the scenarios that you want but in the end it's the "totality of circumstances" which will dictate your response and the charges against you, if there are any. While sitting behind a computer it becomes relatively easy to break down these scenarios and say "I would do this" or "I would do that". However, actually finding yourself in those situations becomes a completetly different story and things don't always go as planned. In short, focus on awareness, avoidance, and prevention strategies first but understand that even the most aware person can have a bad day. That's why mind-set and physical self-defense is so important. Learn to recognize the difference between a fight and a self-defense situation, BEFORE either happens. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into fights and if you happen to find yourself in a self-defense situation, respond accordingly and escape. Do only what you have to do in order to survive the situation and worry about the possible legal outcome AFTER you are safe. As for TRS videos- they like to use hype in order to advertise their products. However, some of their material is actually very good and can definitely add to your arsenal if you already have a solid background in the martial arts or self-defense. Steve Personal Safety Unlimitedhttp://www.geocities.com/combatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymry Posted October 25, 2003 Author Share Posted October 25, 2003 Wow Steve, you're the only one who has actually answered my original question. Thanks! Which TRS videos have you seen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szorn Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Wow Steve, you're the only one who has actually answered my original question. Thanks! Which TRS videos have you seen? I have seen the old disarm videos from Randy Warner and Bob Taylor. Seen most of the videos by Paul Vunak. Seen the Navy Seal videos by Frank Cucci. Have seen the Systema videos by Vlad. Have all the videos by Ray Ellingson. Have the "Improvised Weapons" video by Jesse Lechuga. Seen some of the Clugston videos. Have all of the Bennie Cooley videos. Seen the videos by Jim West. Have all of the Randall Brown "Native American Fighting" videos. Have the "Defensive Folding Knife" videos by my instructor W. Hock Hochheim. I have the "Cop Street Fighting" series by my friend and former boss Mike Gillette. I might have a few more that I have forgotten about. Steve Personal Safety Unlimitedhttp://www.geocities.com/combatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts