Does anyone actually need to learn self defence?

On a physical level learn to fight at a high a level as possible at as many ranges as possible, full contact. On a non physical level create confident attributes ,a will to survive and be a sound,sensible person.Understand what real violence is like and how choatic and messy it is.

You dont learn to fight in coventional SD classes and the soft skills are not worth the money or certifictates and courses you have to go on , its not such a big deal to build a whole industry on, IMO. Alot is common sense if you first become a sound, sensible, confident person.

 

Fair enough.

The word ''questions'' has been replaced by ''things'' in a particular post.

 

Can you provide a post number? If a MOD has edited a post there is an audit trail.

 

You didnt quote this bit that I said first.

Pre emptive striking was an example which every one who thinks they are an expert just repeats like everyones got to do it. The very fact its named is because it was an idea marketed and then taught as a special thing to do in SD. It has been done for thousands of years by people, its not new. Those who naturaly would do it, would think of it anyway and more than likely have a minset to be sneaky and violent and be able to fight. Those that need to be told about it and get certfified like its a specail thing, I suggest might not all find it comfortable to do. Some might, some might not. But an ability to fight is an absolute must if someone is going to use that tactic as a first approach.
I dont think thats always made clear.
Its personal and depends on the situation and person and feelings of that person at that moment.
Just to note the law has not always been that way.

And why do you assume you know me or how violent I am or not or who I have been around who is violent. And I cant diagree with these great names? I am not a sheep and will take responsibilty for myself. Dont worry about it.

 

I dont know what that is. Its no big deal.

 

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you upset because people have chosen to give a descriptive name to hitting before the other guy? I don't see how this is different to applying names to any other tactic such as having 'a guard' or talking about 'ducking'. The term pre-emptive strike is used in legal texts such as Ashworth's Principles of Criminal Law, page 145.

Can you elaborate on this? The ability to prevent a crime using reasonable force is enshrined in the Criminal Law Act 1967.

 

Hi Badger Ladder

I got the impression from your post that you were saying that somebody had edited and changed words in your posts other than you. That is something we take very seriously here. Can you please say which post it was as the administrator will be able to check. Every post has a number in the top right corner.

Cheers

JWT

 

Not my posts,I dont think.

 

Dont worry im not upset, just responding to points as about me not thinking pre emptive striking is this amazing fool proof SD tactic its made out to be and why I used it as an example.

As far as I know its not always been the law to be able to pre- emtivaly strike someone in the context we are describing here and easily use that as defence. If i am wrong, then I am wrong, its fine.

 

I thought it was 276 and 279. It could be me.When responding to alot of post it can get confusing.

 

You are wrong

It has been emphasized explicitly in recent years but common law and statutory law always permitted pre-emptive strikes

You are once again putting out words like "foolproof" that no one else is; your position is arguing against something no one is actually claiming...again. This seems to be a pattern of yours in this thread

Pre-emption is covered both as right to personal safety (Which is also a European Court of Human Rights issue) and also permitted in prevention if a crime (te crime being an assault upon your person)

 

Pre-emtive striking is fine as far as I know.

Something like:

"If you feel you are under imminent attack you have the right to defend yourself until you feel you have neutralized the threat."


Or something. Please don't pick this apart too much, I just can't remember the exact phrasing.