So in a fight what is considered illegal?

Now in a all out bar room brawl kind of fight, is there any level you will not stoop too?

:woo:

 

Nope, I would do whatever it takes, if they attacked me first.

 

Anything goes in a bar room brawl. I'd rather knock them out first before choosing to brake one of their limbs.
If they have knives, I have chairs, tables, pool cues and beer bottles( i finish the beer first, cant waste it!)

I would do what it takes to ensure that I am not on the recieving end1

 

Why's this in the non contributory?

Should be in general discussion or off topic if you please, non contributory is reserved for troll threads...

|Cain|

 

sorry my fault

 

Is fine, anyways I don't carry any weapon for self defense, I kinda want to have a life and not walk around with a weapon and think about being attacked 24/7, if the situation comes - handle it with what you have got at hand, use your surroundings, if you can't find anything and are confused - kick them in the nads

|Cain|

 

Ouch sorry wrong reply in the wrong thread!

*slaps head*

DOH!

|Cain|

 

If I consider my life in danger, I will use all means possible.

Most laws mention the use of reasonable force. If I consider myself in an enough danger that I have to do something, I'll probably be going for a knock out.

 

a gun for me would be going too far, unless of course they have a knife, then take out their legs! Truthfully, it may sound crazy but I would want to use only my hands, to beat a 3 men using chairs and pool cues with your bare hands just seems cool to me. (foolish am I not?)

 

I will go to any length to ensure I win

Apart from causing potentially fatalities unless I am really in that level of danger myself.

 

Personally, I was hit with a brick once in the side of the face. It broke my jaw, and ruptered my saliva gland. What makes me mad about it I was busy dealing with the guy infront of me and all the sudden a brick hits me from the left. I think that since I was unarmed and had no intent upon fatally, or even seriously wounding anyone, that was going too far.
But then again, the one I was fighting was the "brick-users" brother, and when it comes to the protection of family there are no rules at all. Now that I think about it, if it was my little brother on the ground getting beaten by a person with training for such situations, I would have freaked out myself.

 

Its important that we consider NOW what actions we should take in various situations. The situations don't need to be too detailed, just general type stuff. It could stop us hesitating once we get in a situations and have a choice of hands, stick, brick etc.

Personally I wouldn't want doing a lot of unecessary damage to someone on my conscience.

 

If its serious then I am not worried about the damage

However if its some ****ed 16 year old in a park throwing a punch or getting me in a headlock then its not much to worry about and I doubt I will do any real damage to him.

I think once you have trained a lot you get to the point where most of what can be thrown at you - you can deal with it with suitable and reasonable force.

 

I agree Sonshu. Plus once you have trained a lot you know what does damage and what doesn't, and that winning a fight doesn't always mean doing a lot of damage.

 

I could never glass somebody. I jus find that wrong.

 

In defending myself i word use the necessary amount of force for that particular situation.

 

Dont think I could but there are times when I would

To me self defence is not just "self" as such. It is defending my friends, family and other members of the public that need it.

Eg old person being attacked - I just could not bear the thought of that sort of thing as I feel almost as though if I did not help someone then perhaps someone might not help my father if he was attacked?

If its a scrap outside a club I will leave well alone but I hate to see someone being blatently picked on.

I'm nice like that.

 

-Remember that all good samaritans get sued (at least in the US). I only know about use of force laws in the US, not abroad (though I've heard from friends and colleagues that the British laws are even worst regarding self-defense). You as a civilian are allowed to match the level of force used against you to defend yourself or someone (ex. a child) who is unable to defend themselves. If they use deadly force, you are allowed to respond in kind until they are no longer a threat. However, the hindsight of a jury (civil or criminal) may be a little skewered as to when they no longer posed a threat. In less than deadly force situations, law enforcement may use one level above the level of force used against them. If you are interested in being liability conscious, (realize that in the US, the average expense of winning a lawsuit for self-def. is $18,000 out of your pocket to have the judge throw the case out), you are best off using one level lower in the use of force ladder. That way, you are completely covered. If they escalate from there, you are legally justified in giving them the beating that deep down (at least a little part of you) you wanted to give them in the first place. Systems like CDT specialize in this type of training and is useful because statistically 97% of all situations are at this level, though some do escalate from here.

 

personally, I truly would love it if some punk jumped me out of the blue. would feel very satisfying. of course directly after I would have a tinge of concious and feel horrible. I actually am scared to death of someone simply because of the fact that if I gave them the beating they deserved they would end up suing me because I used force and broke a leg or two. Somehow the sense of some judges and lawmakers amazes me

 

KJ, an excellent post. Doesn't sound like our legal systems are that much different in this respect.

Regarding assault charges, it is usually considered that you are saying that you are guilty if you do not charge the other person with assault if they are charging you. I think that's the scenario you suggested when you said the $18K price tag. My brother in law had a fight (if you could call a pushy-shovy thing a fight) about 10 years ago and didn't charge the other person with assault.

The police removed all of his legally owed firearms (he had a fair few from dear and pig hunting) and made a big show of recording his car number plates, etc. Three days of court appearances and $27K of Barrister expences later he was found not guilty but it could have been all avoided if he had charged the other party(ies) with assault straight away. An expensive lesson learnt.

Which makes me say to guys like you, J-man, that NO you REALLY don't want to be involved in an actual encounter. No one actually wins in a fight (except the lawyers).