Im not sure how good any ones chances are of proving they felt in fear of their life and were acting within the law when the police find out they are a trained martial artist with weapon experience and the other guy was unarmed?? and really good luck proving that baseball bat you have behind your bedroom door is for the little league game you play Im not saying different preparations dont prepare you for different things. Im saying if you cant deal with a relatively simple situation of an unarmed opponent within a known rule frame then your changes of dealing with more than one person, armed and with no rules probably isnt that good Im also saying statistically most of us are more likely to die of health issues attached to life style choices than be attacked in our homes so does it really matter
You are allowed to have weapons in your home, and if you can justify the use of them to protect yourself or others from immanent harm, and their use is proportional to the threat, then you can use them.
What does that mean...same tired old argument? We can't know physically how we are going to have to move or what we need to do until it's happening. It's not possible. A person does not know when or where a situation will arise..or what the other person will do...if what we do will work...how they will react to what we do...the variables are infinite so an ability to make it up on the spot and change course or action or recover from failure and do something else ,etc etc is essential.
While there is truth in what you say, that you never know what an opponent will do, you most certainly can narrow down the odds, not to mention practice techniques based on the principle of fighting bipedal apes, which narrows down the infinite possibilities considerably. Are you saying that it is a good idea to spend just as much time practicing to defend against jumping hook kicks as it is hook punches? Equal time should be spent on how to disarm someone wielding an RPG launcher as how to deal with pushes and grabs? I don't get your sport thing either. How does playing crown green bowls or darts prepare you better for violence than drilling fighting techniques and sparring?
As someone once said...train sport, think street. I guess if you don't get it, you just don't get it. No I am not saying that someone should spend as much time on those specific things because if you have a solid foundation on how to defend ,cover, evade ,etc ..unarmed attacks to the head for example with a few variations and favourites that work for you , then it doesn't matter what the strike is. Talking about Rocket launchers is just being ridiculous. On a physical level it's the fundamentals that are key, as in there are many ways to do things which will depend on what's going on at that time and a person will not know if they will be moving back, forward, up, down, left right...etc so they have to be able to do whatever needs doing in any of these positions....strike, clinch grapple, use a weapon,....whatever...who knows. The best ways to practice this and be familiar with this and fail and learn at this and tweak and drill this on a physical level is in the context of competitive sport.
This video pretty much covers the basics of self-defense laws in UK - it's consistent with what I read in a law book: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfcD4TGW10"]UK Laws on Self Defence (Self Defense) - EXPLAINED! - YouTube[/ame]
That's simply not true (I've bolded the important bit for later). I think it would be more accurate to say that the best way is to take what's good about competitive sport and apply that to street specific training. In MANY competitive sports you will be penalised for stalling, evading contact and avoiding the violence of the situation and yet in many self defence situations that's exactly what you should be doing. That would be a "win" in that context. There's a good reason many Judo, wrestling or boxing clubs don't advertise as teaching self defence. It's because they know that's not what they teach. They teach sports (albeit sports that ironically have more self defence application than many martial arts clubs that say they teach self defence!). To me anyone taking an extreme position on this (sport is all you need to defend yourself/sport is useless for self defence training) is wrong and missing the good points from either side. The truth's in the middle IMHO. And you mentioned "physical level". As you well know in self protection the "physical level" is the last place you want to be and if it gets physical then your other levels have failed (the more mental levels of awareness, avoidance, escaping, dissuading, loophole-ing, pre-empting, etc).
If you actually explain what that means, I might. As it is, it looks like a banal sound bite. Train sport if you like sport, I would think, though that is a bit more tautological :dunno: It was supposed to be ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as you saying that any of the infinite possibilities are just as likely as each other to happen. We are habitual animals, hence Simon's comment about Home Office stats and HAOV. You can make quite useful predictions about the type of situations a person might face if you have the stats. Fundamentals and adaptation. Where has anyone argued against that? What proportion of sport training is competitive? I would argue that it is the cooperative training, including sparring, that makes up the vast majority of sport training. I would also argue that it is the neuromuscular programming and shifting of the endocrine system's threshold levels through drilling and sparring that are the big game changers. Competition is a test. One that can keep the principles and techniques of a training regimen honest, but can also lead to an abstraction of fighting due to specialisation inherent in a rule set. You don't learn much from sitting exams, it's the revision and course work that actually do the business.
A pretty simple thing to find out if you are learning a sport or self defence (in the UK) is to ask the instructor what section 3 of the Criminal Law Act of 1967 outlines, what section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008 clarifies and how they are applied to the training being provided. If the instructor looks at you with a baffled look on his face or says it doesn't apply in what they're teaching = Sport. If the instructor articulates what those things are and how the training takes those provisions into account = Self defence. Because I tell you this...if you walked into Iain Abernethy's club or John Titchen's club they'd be able to tell you exactly what those legal definitions are and how they inform the training. As well they should because what they teach is self defence focused (but not exclusively so IIRC).
You worried me for a minute there as I can tell you exactly what section 3 says but didn't have a clue what was in Section 76 of 2008. Turns out it's just codification of case law that I already knew, which is a relief.
This guy has it ****-backward. Thinking up excuses after you have injured people is not good self-defence, and is likely to go against you in court (I include staying out of prison as part of self-defence).
I stopped it when he started asking people to comment, like and subscribe. Was anything relevant said in the last second? Are you talking about him advising people to consult legal advice if they're going to court? Again, this is remedial, not preventative.
No, I think the video explains the basics of the UK law on Self-defense pretty accurately. There's good information in the video. What he is saying is if you find yourself in a situation where you have had to use force, you could only use self-defense as an argument in a court if you had these reasons to use force, otherwise, you'd be convicted and your defense would not be upheld....I'm confused It clarifies what self-defense is and what isn't. there's certainly nothing in it where he suggests thinking up excuses.... This was the purpose of this video and it's consistent with the stuff I've read on Geoff Thompson's website as well a law book ....
I guess we got a different message from it. I didn't like the way he said things like: if you defend yourself with a baseball bat, tell them you play baseball and you'll get away with it. [EDIT: He also seems to confuse the law on weapons in public as opposed to on your own private property. I can have a cricket bat in my hallway, and it doesn't matter if I've never so much as watched a game of cricket. My intended use for that only becomes an issue if I'm walking down the street with it, or if it is in the boot of my car or whatever, then I have to have a valid reason as to why it is not intended to be used as a weapon. If I have a licensed shotgun that I shoot an intruder with, as long as it was legally stored when the intruder broke into my house and I used it lawfully to defend myself, I don't have to prove that I regularly use the shotgun for sport or pest control. What would be an issue is if the shotgun and ammunition were to hand and not legally stored. Now, if I tell the court that I have a baseball bat under my pillow for the express purpose of hitting intruders, then it is likely to make a jury less inclined to believe that I acted proportionally to the threat, but there is nothing illegal about sleeping with a baseball bat under your pillow in your own home.] Some things were just obvious, like if you shoot someone with an illegal firearm you will go to prison. Also, who doesn't have legal counsel when they are charged with a crime? I'm not saying that he was totally off with his interpretation of the law, but the whole video was framed in retrospective excuses, rather than proactive planning.
Thats simply not true? Either your missinterpreting me or your possibly from another planet. Yes I could be wrong but you would need to produce evidence enough to counter what is known about physiology. If a person runs..they run. On a physiological level they run the same round a track as when they do in an emergency. Gait, or use of spine or hips or foot placement or whatever does not suddenly alter and become something different because now its a run to escape danger. Forget the situation of how, or why...physiologicaly it does not alter to extreme that anyone would say that there needs to be a special way to run for SD or from danger. Its the same with swimming,climbing etc. A person who runs, or swims, or climbs on a regular basis will run ,swim or climb away from danger better and more economically than someone who does not or hardly does. they have rehearsed and ingrained, learnt, failed, lost, won enough to ingrain fundamentaly ,than someone who hasnt. They will not care about form, technique, or anything but whatever is ingrained will come out still to make them better than if they never ran at all. The argument against ,say, boxing for SD has been that they will not be a ring with rules etc etc so it will all go wrong. Would someone say that a competative runner would just run in a circle or not know what to do when faced with an obstacle when running in an emergency....I doubt it. Oh I hope the next guy that starts on me is like you and thinks that because i take this view on sport Ill play by the rules or i think its going to be like a ring fight....big big mistake. And Im finding it tired, myself, that everytime any one mentions sport as a means to cover physical elements ,it means the rest is being ignored and that people are not capable of avoiding fights or being chilled and socially comfortable to deal with other people other than fighting them or they are not wise enough to get out of it other ways, if possible.
