What constitutes a 'real' fight?

Most street predators could care less about the law, social mores, and the like. If you present yourself as a victim and they have the opportunity, they'll take it. Violence works for them, that's why they use it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If sucker punching you to stun you then continuing their assault until you are unable to resist anymore then stealing your valuables worked in the past, they'll try it on someone else. Most of them could care less if they go to jail or not, what charges they get, and who they hurt. It could be just desperation for survival, it could be for drugs, or it could be just because they want whatever you have.

 

They COULDN'T CARE LESS.

If they could care less they might not do it. :/

 

I just wanted to mention that stage three also appears as "Hey, you got the time?", "Hey buddy, you got any spare change?", "Hey, I really need your help.", etc., etc.. Also known as "The Interview" where what's actually happened is they've established their distance, are looking for any way to breach your defenses, and are doing a final weighing of whether or not you might be able to kill them.

 

Yes, I see the differences. However, perhaps due to social taboos, the English language has more different terms for types of rain than we have for types of fight.

 

Pff that's nowt, up in Scotland, our football team have over Five-HUNDRED words for abject failure

 

Agreed and thats why I think its important to keep things framed correctly. Confrontations with murderous intent or complete mayhem in mind are exceptional. Most of the murderous events I hear about now are matters regarding the (over)use of firearms. In such cases, the use of cold weapons, including h2h have been obviated for centuries. There are still regular murderous events, but typically they take place in closed societies such as prisons or street riots. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

I'm curious how you'd classify a "fight" where one party is exercising training and restraint, intentionally not harming the other person because of professionalism (LEO, security, etc.). Most of my "fights" where very one-sided this way. I was exercising calm and restraint while the person attacking me was actively trying to hurt me using whatever means were available. Because of my obligations and training, I was able to confine those situations to non-lethal (non-damaging really) force only.

 

If as an arrestee you try and fight me (rather than just actively resist) you are not going to like the end results because I cannot afford to wait and see if you are skilled or not.

 

I would have to agree. I don't think all murders start with the intent to murder. How many times have you heard a suspect say in the news something along the lines of "The gun just went off", "They kept fighting me so I kept stabbing them", and "I didn't mean to kill them"? Sometimes things just get taken too far and was not the original intent, nor even intended in the first place.

 

John, are you purposely not reading my posts or are you trolling to see if you can start something going?

A fight is when there is no concern for the life or well-being of the participants. What are you not understanding?

If a person attacking you has NO regard for your life and/or well-being its a fight. If your response to being in a fight is to let that person debilitate you or kill you, then enjoy! If you can deal with muderous rage and/or intended mayhem by simply using non-damaging/non-lethal force thats just fine.

The point I am making (here stated for the third time) is that we ought not confuse situations of conflict as automatically being "fights". I get real tired of ****ing contests where people represent what they do as a solution for dealing with fights, when what they are really doing is settling a "challenge".

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain in details Bruce, I appreciate & indeed, I had not seen your post from that angle.

Hummm.... I am likely not qualified to say much as most of my "experience" of extreme violence is from reading, but it seems that this definition might be a little bit too restrictive.

For instance, when my wife and I fight (yes, it happenz, and is is always her fault (*) ), we still have concern for each other's well being...

Rory Miller has several chapters in "Meditations On Violence" and "Facing Violence" that attempt to classify fights and their degrees, how they happen, and the various types of violent encounters that may lead to a fight.
According to some of the examples he gives, some fights happen and finish without blows, but the confrontation and the danger was there...
In one striking case (pun intended) of making an assailant with a knife run by his mere presence and confidence, he asks: "Does that qualify as a fight?"
In his mind it does.


Complex subject, well worth getting educated about.


Osu!




(*) I just checked, she is not reading over my shoulder...

 

Uh, what? No.

As I stated, I was curious how you'd classify many of my altercations, where the attacker wasn't concerned for my well being but I was to his.

I have so far. Obviously it makes things more challenging.

Listen, I don't know why you thought I might be trying to cause conflict with you, but your opinion has no baring on how I see myself. I was simply curious how you'd classify a situation where one party is far more concerned for the well-being of another party. They're all just fights to me, but clearly you have specific criteria for classifying such things.

Now, you answered my question, so thank you.

I would agree. I've diffused many situations where I was interviewed for violence, in some cases by groups, and that skill is more practical than being great at knocking heads together. Less paperwork too.

In close protection work, 99% of the work is in avoidance and prevention. Route planning, site surveillance, counter-surveillance, vetting employees, etc. The remaining 1% is reactionary, showcasing the sexy stuff you see on TV. If you're good at your job, it's boring and mundane. Self-defense/fighting should be considered in the same manner, with the weight of emphasis on studying pre-violence strategies of avoidance.

 

So I take it if they brought two guys in and found out that only one was the aggressor and the other was just defending himself while trying to find a way out, he wouldn't be charged? It is interesting that the law sees the difference. Mutual would be the willing participation if I am not mistaken.

The fact that you explained it as an ambush-style knife attack is telling. Much better description of the reality of the situation than just saying "fight." Again though, until they have tried to attack you, are they doing anything wrong? Of course we would argue, "He was sizing me up to be his next victim." Yet if you escaped from being his victim, you were not ambushed. Legally, it would be hard to prove intent if it didn't evolve into the attack. A near miss is still a miss. It is like saying you were in a tornado but it never touched down.

It seems like you are calling 3)Challenge matches what most people would call fights and 4)Fights what most people would call "real fights," or as I would call them, assaults, sudden attacks, getting jumped, etc.

I like your points but they don't necessarily correspond to how most "fights/challenge matches" go down. I think it is better geared to explaining predatory violence(real fights). 1,2,and 4 all add up, but 1,2, and 3 don't necessarily. If two(or more) people begin arguing, it isn't necessarily due to drugs, mental illness, grief, or fear. It could be any number of things. If these people keep escalating to a challenge match/fight, they are both aggressors(willing participants). This kind of social violence isn't really explained by your 4 points.


However, if you don't ever get to stage 3 or 4 for some reason(ie he chooses another target, you prove to be more than he bargained for, etc), you haven't been in a fight. Just like if you are arguing with someone in the bar(non-predator) and are about to come to blows but you don't. You had an argument or a verbal fight, but not a fight. Being able to recognize the stages you mentioned is important but that is how you avoid fights(becoming a victim), not fighting. An interview is just that, him assessing you and his chances.

I think we all can agree that these are the kind of people that don't want a "fair fight." They want to get it done and over with quickly and don't want a challenge. To me, these kinds of blitzkrieg attacks are not fights, but "real fights," or as I said earlier assaults(not in the legal sense).

However, even in war there are rules and people who choose not to kill, even if it means they or their comrades will be killed. There are countless examples of soldiers finding their conscience in the heat of battle and doing things that showed compassion for the enemy or civilians, etc. It is an odd thing of human psychology but true. For example, Greek fire was ruled to be too ghastly by papal decree but they didn't mind people dying of torture. We bombed the crap out of Vietnam, using things like napalm yet still fought the "war" under restriction.

 

It's up to the accused to prove what they did to avoid the incident and that they had no other option rather than to fight back. Most mutual combat assaults not committed in the presence of an LEO need to be taken to a local magistrate by the victim/s in my state. Thus without witnesses it becomes a "he said-she said" deal. If it appears you did enter into the fight by mutual consent (i.e. a "challenge match" as said before) then you can be just as guilty.

If they have a knife in their hand and are approaching you, that's intent enough to be concerned enough for your own well-being to defend yourself.

Anyone concerned about their own survival probably doesn't want a "fair fight." I want all my fights to be as unfair as possible with me getting all the advantages I can. Why? Because I want to win. You have different types of fights, attempting to claim what is and what is not a fight is just going to muddy the waters and really has no consequence in the grand scheme of things. It's purely semantics.

 

Sure, proving your innocence is not all that cut and dry. My point is though, if you are found not to have been engaging in "mutual combat," you will either have a lesser charge or none at all. So in the eye of the law, there is a distinction made between willing combatants(participants) and those who were not.

I don't think anybody is disputing that either.

The OP asked for a discussion of semantics, how we define things from our experience and why. That is my point, calling so many various things by the same word causes confusion when discussing it. I doubt anybody here thinks a firefight, boxing match(prizefight), barfight, verbal fight, or fight for your life(against cancer for example), are all the same thing. Perhaps that is why he chose "real fight" in his wording. I think we all understand the danger inherent in any fight but see that there is a difference in intent, strategy, and tactics when people are involved in a "real fight," no matter how we define it.

 

Of course. That's why earlier I posted that they were willing participants. It's just interesting that the legal terms define it as "assault".

Sometimes for simplicity's sake getting into semantics just further confuses the issue. For instance, you mentioned fire fight. Two men shooting at each other in an attempt to kill each other are different from a man shooting in the air to scare off a burglar, for example. A man gets into a bar fight, feels he lost, goes back to his car, gets his gun, and shoots at his aggressor from earlier who in turn shoots back and kills him. Was that just a gun fight, or a bar fight turned gun fight? Maybe he doesn't kill him and just puts him in a coma. Now it's a gun fight turned fight for your life. What if one guy really isn't trying to kill the other (as statistics have shown, even in war very few people really shoot to kill)? Since the intent to kill isn't there, is it really a "fight"?

Or we could just make it simple and say "real violence" overall. Much simpler and easier.

 

Sure, we could but it is often hard to distinguish. For example, two guys square off thinking they are in a fight, but one guy gets hit in just the right place and hits his head on the curb and dies. Suddenly, we went from "fight" to murder/manslaughter in one punch. The intent to kill wasn't there but the guy was killed nonetheless. So what started off as a fight/challenge match became a "real fight."

Same thing if one guy starts losing and decides to introduce weapons as you mentioned. So fight, to real violence "real fight" again. In your example, the intent changed as we go from bar fight to gunfight. People often claim they didn't intend to hurt someone but when you pull a lethal weapon, you have upped the ante and if you don't intent to commit murder, you shouldn't be carrying or deploying the weapon you carry. Mistaking intent and strategy when dealing with real violence can quickly lead to the hospital or cemetary. This is part of the reason why I don't get into "fights," or challenge matches if you will. Ego isn't worth taking the risk of going down a road that could lead to being found guilty of using real violence when that wasn't the original intent.

 

Agreed. This is why nobody should willingly involve themselves in any fight in my opinion.

 

A real man doesn't kill someone not because it isn't fun, but because he might go to prison for it.

 

Read "On Killing" and you'll see it's based on way more than just that.