Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Lily Haaron

Martial Artists and Self-Defense Law

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I think the damage should be looked at before the cause of damage. This law, in my opinion, has a lot of flaws, and needs to be refined a lot - if its even to be passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say

 

Because that is clearly what I said...

 

Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so.

 

Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking.

 

In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm.

When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction.

 

To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth.

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say

 

Because that is clearly what I said...

 

Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so.

 

Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking.

 

In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm.

When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction.

 

To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth.

 

~John

which pretty much equates to the "eye for an eye" ideology which total makes sense as well. even if someone is coming at you armed and lets say you are trained in a form of martial arts, you really should try to run away anyways as you have no idea what that person is capable of. even if you are the better fighter whats the point in causing harm and most likely putting yourself in harms way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I bring up the point that not in every situation are you able to run, and I don't know of any martial art who teaches an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. You meet force with a required amount of reactive force, but not necessarily equal, and not necessarily to damage or injure. Quick resolution - not revenge for what they do for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I bring up the point that not in every situation are you able to run, and I don't know of any martial art who teaches an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. You meet force with a required amount of reactive force, but not necessarily equal, and not necessarily to damage or injure. Quick resolution - not revenge for what they do for you.

which is not what I said?

 

the only one who did John, also i realize that running is not always possible. If it is possible it really should be the first choice though and if it isn't you should try to subdue you're attacker with the least amount of force necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly you shouldn't just run, the first thought should be to diffuse the situation, if not try and stop them from following you when you do run.

 

If you just turn and run straight away you are defenseless and you lose eyesight of the attacker, in jiu jitsu I am tought to always make sure you can see where your opponent is and what they're doing, if you simply run they could tackle you to the ground where you'd be in a much worse situation to defend yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say

 

Because that is clearly what I said...

 

Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so.

 

Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking.

 

In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm.

When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction.

 

To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth.

 

~John

which pretty much equates to the "eye for an eye" ideology which total makes sense as well. even if someone is coming at you armed and lets say you are trained in a form of martial arts, you really should try to run away anyways as you have no idea what that person is capable of. even if you are the better fighter whats the point in causing harm and most likely putting yourself in harms way.

 

Why should you run as your first option?

 

Who is to say you are faster then the person running at you? At least from the front you have a much better chance of defense then if your back is turned when they catch up to you.

Secondly, who is to say you can run from every situation?

 

The person also has no idea of what you are capable of either. As far as I am concerned, if you start a fight, its' your fault for whatever damage you take. If you don't want to get hurt, don't start a fight. It's that simple.

 

I'm not against running, and I'm not for it. It depends entirely on the situation. However, the rule should not be "run!" People should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. Every fight is different. Some you can run from, some you can't. Some people can be reasoned with, others can't.

 

May I bring up the point that not in every situation are you able to run, and I don't know of any martial art who teaches an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. You meet force with a required amount of reactive force, but not necessarily equal, and not necessarily to damage or injure. Quick resolution - not revenge for what they do for you.

 

Agreed.

 

That was the point I made. Whatever force is employed against you, you counter with an equal reactive force. Nothing greater if at all possible.

 

~John

Edited by John Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in the U.S., in many states there are many many laws that increase penalties in cases of violence if one is trained in martial arts, even in self-defense. In some cases, they are considered to be armed, even if they have no weapons on their person. There are also very unreasonable restrictions on this, such as the 'You must give a warning' (and in some cases state that you are trained) and wait for three strikes against you before you strike back. Even blocked a strike coming at you can be considered a strike in court.

 

Is this fair to have these regulations on martial artists in a combat situation?

 

 

 

Now, some of the thing outside of the question I would like to address from my own experience as a black belt in Taekwondo:

-While we do know ways to kill and seriously injure people, we focus on means of temporarily stunning, distracting, disarming, etc. in order to get us enough time to get away, or restrain the target. Also, anyone can punch someone to the nose and force it into their brain.

-Many of the more traditional Asian-style martial arts (Taekwondo, Karate, etc.) teach disciplines in self-restraint, use of minimal force, etc.

-At least on the West Coast, some of these laws were put in place in response to anti-Asian sentiment.

-General street fighters are more likely to inflict lethal/seriously injuring wounds.

 

 

~Dimos

 

Force should be met with equal force.

 

It is unfair to apply such restrictions to combat.

 

~John

so someone who is legally classed as a weapon should have free reign to use as much force as they see fit in any situation, if you don't see something wrong with that then i don't know what to say

 

Because that is clearly what I said...

 

Everyone has the potential to cause great damage to another person without any impliments (just their hands and feet). Training simply demonstrates this potentional, refines it, and makes it easier for people to access it when they either desire, or are required to do so.

 

Force should fit the situation period. An attacker has assumed the responsibility for any damage they might incure by attacking.

 

In real life combat is not certain. It is the defenders job to secure themselves from harm.

When an attack occurs it is the defenders choice how much damage to deal. A choice they must make in a split second. Training will influence how much damage is done by reaction.

 

To answer your question directly, force should ideally meet the force used initally. A punch should be met with a punch. A knife attack with a suitable counterattack (a dislocated or broken arm) and so on and so forth.

 

~John

which pretty much equates to the "eye for an eye" ideology which total makes sense as well. even if someone is coming at you armed and lets say you are trained in a form of martial arts, you really should try to run away anyways as you have no idea what that person is capable of. even if you are the better fighter whats the point in causing harm and most likely putting yourself in harms way.

 

Why should you run as your first option?

 

Who is to say you are faster then the person running at you? At least from the front you have a much better chance of defense then if your back is turned when they catch up to you.

Secondly, who is to say you can run from every situation?

 

The person also has no idea of what you are capable of either. As far as I am concerned, if you start a fight, its' your fault for whatever damage you take. If you don't want to get hurt, don't start a fight. It's that simple.

 

I'm not against running, and I'm not for it. It depends entirely on the situation. However, the rule should not be "run!" People should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. Every fight is different. Some you can run from, some you can't. Some people can be reasoned with, others can't.

 

May I bring up the point that not in every situation are you able to run, and I don't know of any martial art who teaches an 'eye for an eye' philosophy. You meet force with a required amount of reactive force, but not necessarily equal, and not necessarily to damage or injure. Quick resolution - not revenge for what they do for you.

 

Agreed.

 

That was the point I made. Whatever force is employed against you, you counter with an equal reactive force. Nothing greater if at all possible.

 

~John

So by your logic, and correct me of I'm wrong, if someone had a gun and was shooting it me it would then be alright for me to kill then with my own gun? Replace gun with knife/fists etc and you see where this is going right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So by your logic, and correct me of I'm wrong, if someone had a gun and was shooting it me it would then be alright for me to kill then with my own gun? Replace gun with knife/fists etc and you see where this is going right.

 

If someone was shooting you, and the only way you could defend yourself was shooting back? Hell yes that would be alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by your logic, and correct me of I'm wrong, if someone had a gun and was shooting it me it would then be alright for me to kill then with my own gun? Replace gun with knife/fists etc and you see where this is going right.

 

If someone was shooting you, and the only way you could defend yourself was shooting back? Hell yes that would be alright.

talking about guns might not have been the best thing to use in this analogy.

 

i meant shoot to kill though, why not just shoot to disarm/incapacitate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by your logic, and correct me of I'm wrong, if someone had a gun and was shooting it me it would then be alright for me to kill then with my own gun? Replace gun with knife/fists etc and you see where this is going right.

 

If someone was shooting you, and the only way you could defend yourself was shooting back? Hell yes that would be alright.

talking about guns might not have been the best thing to use in this analogy.

 

i meant shoot to kill though, why not just shoot to disarm/incapacitate

 

But by the current law, martial artists aren't even allowed to do that without being sued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.