How necessary is hard/full contact for realistic training? Why?

It would appear so, I missed that post. You are correct, my apologies.

 

Actually you didn't. You added that in a subsequent post. Your original post was incredibly ambiguous and ill informed.

 

Considering that a few days ago you posted this:

You certainly like to drag out your goodbyes, don't you?

Lay off the accusatory tone towards another MAPer over some ambiguous crap you posted and think.

If you want to accuse other people of not being able to read properly, you might want to think about the fact you posted this:

And then posted this:

After Hannibal had already called you on it with this:

Which ignores the fact that JWT also called you on it.

You made a bollocks claim to start with. You got called on it. You're now doing your usual trick of trying to buck the blame through a mix of deflection, hashed out excuses and general accusations levelled at other MAPers. Even though you've also admitted you don't study law and have no actual idea how the law would work "in practice".

Bravo.

 

Doing what it takes to survive. What is so hard to understand in this statement?

Is it a reasonable option letting myself get killed instead?

How ambigious and ill informed of me

 

Point proven.

Doing what it takes to survive could literally mean anything.

You also didn't just say "do what it takes to survive". You also followed up with this in the same comment:

EDIT: Emphasis mine. :EDIT.

So by your statement, if someone threatened to hit you if you didn't hand over your watch, you could kill them. Or if someone demanded your wallet. Or if someone pushed you around in a drunken argument.

 

I think you know full well what I was referring to. Stop deflecting.

^This is your ambiguous and ill informed statement.

Are you ready to answer Hannibal's question yet?
Are you ready to bring knowledge and evidence to the table in support of the things you have said on this thread?
One of the golden rules here (that used to be stickied and was (hopefully temporarily) removed accidentally in a cleanup of old stickied threads recently) was the burden of proof on MAP. Don't expect any claims you make here to be accepted without evidence.

 

Which is preceeded in the same post by: Doing what it takes to survive. You claimed it was my original post.

Wrong.

 

Again, ambiguous use of terminology which was reinforced by your point about being able to kill in self defence in the very next sentence.

Irrelevant. Whether it was the original post that sparked off this particular line of discussion or not actually has nothing to do with the terminology you chose to use.

Why? if you're going to accuse someone of being wrong, back it up. Otherwise it just comes across as having a tantrum.

 

You still don't see it?

You said that you could kill in court. That's what that sentence actually means. It may not be what you intended. You might think I'm being picky and pedantic, but this is what you are really missing about self defence. How you describe what you do, what you can do, what you did etc is generally more important than what you actually did.

 

I am aware of the translation error. Since it wasnt an isolated statement, and you tried to ridicule it I figured we could move on in the discussion and not get side tracked.

 

So are you writing in a second language? That is actually very important as to how your posts will be received here. You'll find that posters are far more tolerant of errors in people they know are trying to communicate in a foreign language.

This does lead back to Hannibal's question and the context of your statements. What country are you posting from?

 

Bollocks.

You've used this one before.

You've been asked multiple times which country you are in for the sake of clearing up some issues and rather than respond, you outright ignored the question altogether.

You could have mentioned much earlier that there may be a translation issue, especially when you were having a dig at another MAPer for not reading what you had put and Simon over not understanding about the karate issues and "not training to finish the job".

Frankly I don't buy it in the slightest.

 

This whole discussion is a side track. The thread has gone on a wild tangent, what is appropriate use of force in self defence is a very different discussion to 'how necessary is hard/full contact for realistic training? Why?'

You have stated what you beleive your actions in self defence would be and what the legal repurcutions would be. I personally think that from what you have said you will struggle to convince a court you acted appropriately in proportion to the threat (to paraphrase you '7-10 larger guys ambushing you but not attacking you' .

In order to carry on arguing that you are correct you will need to say what country your in and quote the wording that you think supports your argument. Post #116 from JWT clearly backed up his argument in regards to UK law to counter that you will need to post a comparable explaination quoting the laws of your country. This is essential as laws can vary subtley from country to country (although they are often supprisingly consistent).

 

Last Time I checked this thread it was about how point sparring folks could destroy all other fighters. Now they are killing them!

 

"That escalated quickly"

 

So for itf-taekwondo, here is a summation of what Swedish Law says on the matter.

In practise this is not significantly different to the laws I stated, which is hardly surprising because in legal hierarchy they also sit under the Human Rights Act. A use of lethal force or committing GBH (particularly if it was clearly deliberate) would need to be justified by a court accepting both the defender's state of mind and their perception of the threat.

 

And that is exactly what was said before and - wadda ya know - it was right!

This is why your reputation on here is mud ITF-T....you keep talking a big game but have zero to back it up. That is irritating in and of itself, but the fact you won't listen to those who are in a position to help and educate you AND you insist on arguing with them makes you look ridiculous

Oh and the "lost in translation" excuse is crap - I have seen your posts and you speak English just fine...except when it suits you not to

 

The problem when it comes to the subject , is that people confuse fighting with self defense and confuse self defense within legal parameters

From this state of confusion people tend to state what they believe, rather than what is factual. And when they are proven incorrect, they (some) tend to get offensive

To me, someone being boisterous of skill, fighting ability, qualifying instructor, knowledge, and also financial status, especially on a forum, is obtuse

Notice I used the word; "boisterous", because there are people here who do possess ability, qualifying instructor, knowledge, and also financial status, yet do not "toot their own horn", while having others respect and acknowledge them

 

I have a mouth almighty on me...but have earned the right to have it

 

Then if you go against 7-10 Big Guys, in court you have earned the right to kill them :evil: