Takeaway fight between bouncers and clubbers

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by EdiSco, May 18, 2017.

  1. neems

    neems Valued Member

    I can tell you for a fact some people don't quit as easily as you seem to think,and people sometimes don't stay unconscious for long enough.
    Anyone attacking an innocent person needs to be put down and made to stay down to be effectively neutralised.

    That's all aside from the fact they may well have a weapon,which you don't have the right to carry.

    As if that ever stopped a committed violent criminal.
  2. neems

    neems Valued Member

    Then you probably wouldn't keep your license for long working on a rough site.

    Awareness of were the cameras are facing is another very important thing to consider,do anything that looks the slightest bit fishy and you're fate's in the lap of the gods.

    Most police are fine,decent,reasonable people,as are most magistrates.
    But not all of them.
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Nonsense - pre emptive action is encoded into the legal framework. If you cannot explain why you pre-empted you shouldn't have done it - period.

    The "rougher" the site the more pre-emptive action (physical and non physical) is necessary

    Again nonsense - cameras will support a narrative or they won't. If you are worried about the camera you shouldn't be doing what you are doing

    Based on...? I mean I already know its of "I read/heard it somewhere.." variety

    Pointless scaremongering
  4. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    They don't need to stay unconscious - they simply need to no longer be an imminent threat. You cannot simply smack again "just in case"

    Wrong - and this type of "carte blanche" approach is exactly why you don't take advice from anonymous people online

    Whilst it is an certainly an option what you need to do is remove the threat/danger - this may be physical, may be a show of force or may be colorful language with associated gestures

    You cannot take action purely based on "might have" - it's not legal or moral

    Never dealt with them much have you?

    How about leaving the legal and use of force aspects to those of us who have?
  5. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    Between you and Simon, I know who I'd want standing beside me on a door - I'll give you a hint, it's not the 14 year old keyboard warrior.
  6. Dan Bian

    Dan Bian Neither Dan, nor Brian

    Not to be contrary, but I actually believe you can.

    I used to have a book called "Know your rights" and it included a section on UK laws regarding self defence.
    To roughly recall what it said is:
    "If you take action because you have a genuine belief that an attacker is armed, even if it later transpires that he is not, your actions will still be judged based on your interpretation at the time."
    I'll try and track the book down so I can post the full details.
  7. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    I think this is a phrasing issue.

    "Might have" doesn't imply a truly held belief that someone is about to be faced with physical harm.

    "He was fidgety with his footwork, his arms were spread, his chest puffed out and his head nodding towards mine" is a better phrase than "might have".

    In the above case we ca see why someone would take physical pre-emptive action, but the phrasing is everything.

    If you say, "he came towards me and might have hit me", you'll not have the same legal standing as you would using the example I gave.

    Someone could come towards you and ask if you needed assistance and that is the question you'd be faced with by the police.

    "You hit someone because they came towards you"
  8. bassai

    bassai onwards and upwards ! Moderator Supporter

    I would imagine this is to cover someone reaching into a jacket , or brandishing a bag that looks like it it may have a weapon in it.
    Not "well he looked like he might be carrying"
  9. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

  10. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    "I hit him because he was aggressive and he put his right hand behind him and appeared to be reaching for something in his waistband".
  11. neems

    neems Valued Member

    I'm not going to turn this into a tool measuring contest,I've seen and been involved in enough to know people you thought were out aren't necessarily going to stay down.
    And when things are chaotic that's what needs to happen.

    Like I know for a fact some people in some circumstances will avoid the camera,some things look bad on camera.

    I've had interactions with good police and bad ones,the same with magistrates.
    I've been questioned over ripping someones clothing when he attacked me by one constable and had another say under oath that I've set an excellent example of appropriate force,despite some damage being done to my attacker.

    Lots of opinions and 'morals',it should be clear cut,you attack an innocent person and almost nothing's off the table as far as them defending themselves imo.

    I know a few people who've lost their licenses for using necessary but un-PC methods.

    I'm not 'advising' anyone,I'm telling you door staff act very differently on camera and for good reason.
  12. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    You have to understand that as a martial arts forum with a world wide membership we can't give advice based on possibilities, irresponsible law enforcement or how others have acted.

    Our advice has to be based on the law.

    Teaching and educating in regard what a person in need of defending themselves is allowed to do, be that de-escalation, pre-emptive strikes, or a continued progression to disable an attacker.

    We advocate that a good self defence system is legally underpinned, that is to say a basic education programme that not only deals with the physical aspect, but the legal side too.
  13. neems

    neems Valued Member

    Mate I'm not giving advice,I'm just analysing what I seen.

    Imo if there wasn't a camera over the guards head he,or the man to his left may well have acted very differently when it became apparent it was escalating,which was well before it kicked off.

    I would of course agree,we should all stick to the law as it is.
    Whether or not we agree with it.
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    That's different because there is a balance of subjective and.objective articulable factors coming into play

    Giving them a dig on the offchance was the scenario presented and my initial assessment stands :)
  15. Pretty In Pink

    Pretty In Pink Moved on MAP 2017 Gold Award

    "Yes Officer, she slapped me so I broke her wrist"
  16. Travess

    Travess The Welsh MAPper Supporter


    Below is an extract from a pretty long article (http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/SelfDefense-Wrong.htm) written by Marc MacYoung which I think covers this misconception quite well...

    "It's not enough just to know a technique.
    You also need to know when to use it and when not to.

    I use the term "appropriate for the circumstances" quite a bit when talking about self-defense. This isn't just if it's legally justifiable for the circumstances, but also if (given the circumstances) the move will work or not.

    On the Self-Defense hub I used an analogy of a public swimming pool. A pool that has a shallow end, a middle and a deep end. I'm going to expand on that general idea by with the following
    A level factors + Appropriate A level response = Good
    B level factors + Appropriate B level response = Good
    C level factors + Appropriate C level response = Good

    Easy right? Now consider this
    A level factors + C level response = Bad
    B level factors + B level response = Good
    C level factors + A level response = Disaster"

    ...Pretty self explanatory I'd say.

  17. Martinroy

    Martinroy Valued Member

    I have a suggestion for all of you...
    Do you know the best thing in fight is??
    You need not to be a good MMA athlete, body builder..etc..
    The thing you need to be is...
    you need to be a good runner...
    when ever you have a fight just keep running as you can without looking back :p
  18. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    A couple of things spring to mind.

    This assumes you can run to somewhere faster than the person chasing you.

    if you can't you face the same assailant exhausted.

    It also assumed you are on your own. I'd hate to run to safety and leave loved ones or friends to face the danger.
  19. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Things are not simple nor can they or can be neatly packaged because SD is infinity variable in how, where and when it can happen and how it's dealt with.
    It's the person in the moment that has to decide. They have to get it as right as they possibly can. It's not possible to get it perfect because there is no perfect. There's only what was best for that situation or moment.

    From Palmer v the queen 1971

    "The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. "

    "It inlvolves no abstruse legal thought......only common sense"

    Of course it's good to know laws to whatever level a person wants to.
    No need for people to push that knowing the law in depth somehow makes you superior in a SD situation because the jury decides if it goes that far.
    Common sense.
    I have been started on , dealt with it, then been accused of assault haha.
    It can happen. Everyone would say they were innocent and did what they thought and play the 'good guy' defending themselves if it was simple. The jury decides, not those involved.
    Not sure im comfortable with phrasing things in certain way to appear innocent either. I could be the one in the wrong but believe I'm right. Everyone thinks they are right. I'll take my chances with the truth ,personally.

    With pre- emptive striking and the possibility of a knife...it's a sound tactic to assume someone has a knife because if they pull it out half way through ,you could die. That doesn't mean you try to kill everyone or over the top nonsense like that. It simply means using common sense for each situation and if it's going to kick off, either knocking some out or stunning with a pre-emptive strike or not losing sight or control of their hands for them to disappear....somehow getting dominant control with the assumption at any moment they could try to go for something.
    Rather than half way through something, suddenly having to go into a different mode because a knife has appeared. Too late. In every sense you have let the other person get the upper hand. Don't be cocky and assume the best.....they could be skilled, violent, have a knife, have friends. That's the default position for anyone serious about their safety.

    What's funny about pre emptive striking is that it comes from bad guys....it's a violent bad guy tactic that Geoff Thompson learnt from his peers and introduced into mainstream martial arts. He did not invent it and doesn't claim to have and acknowledges lots of guys before him in martial arts were doing it.
    It's been around since man has fought to get the upper hand before a person can get going or even realises what's happening or can do anything like pull a knife .
    Last edited: May 29, 2017

Share This Page