This is an idea that I hear perpetuated a lot. Even my own sensei goes on about this like "the range of our sparring is different from the range of an actual situation." Que the other students nodding along mindlessly. Can't say I agree. You can usually tell when you're about to need to defend yourself and at that point you typically still have a lot of distance to work with. I would even argue that if you've let the other guy get close enough during the posturing phase that the fight starts at that closer range, that's your screwup. Obviously unexpected poop happens, so it could very well end up with you too very close. But treating that situation like an absolute is dumb to me. Plenty of situations end at mid range. Yes, it may very well require you to swing first. But legal self-defense is just patty-cake anyway so who cares?
Do your sensei and classmates know that you disparage them in this way online? How well do they receive that? Are you still welcomed when you show up at the school?
I have zero intention of letting a karate sensei know that one of his students is capable of independent thought. I'm too young to get shot because I made a grown adult throw a tantrum. And yes I'm still perfectly welcomed there lol.
Until they get wind of the fact that you come on a forum like this and describe your classmates as mindlessly nodding along. we’ll see how long it lasts.
The Karate is Okinawan. I'll be fine. Now if it was Mainland-Japanese karate where you train to look good to your friends and family.. and celebrate conformity.. well I wouldn't even be training there in the first place because I happen to love myself lol.
Now then.. are you going to actually focus on the question instead of complaining about my lack of regard for your worthless values?
All self-defense happens at extremely close range? If you don't take bus, or walk on a busy street, why would you allow a stranger to be so close to you. Especial during the COVID season, the social distance is extreme important.
Given the nature of the self defence forum it's moderated slightly differently to the others. So let's stop this nonsense right now. It's clear you have a theory, but not the knowledge or experience to back it up, so maybe you'd be better off asking questions, rather than incorrect statements. I will be watching this thread closely.
Nonsense, (borderline personal insult deleted). If you successfully defend yourself from an attacker and the authorities catch wind that you're trained, you're done. Your attacker can do whatever they want to you from a legal perspective because you didn't either run away or let them hurt you. So yes.. it's patty cake and I'm not gonna sit here and let you only allow (borderline evasion of profanity TOS deleted) to be perpetuated.
Thread closed. I will add to this when I get home, but for now we are done. You are on a tight leash young man.
This is another martial arts myth that is all too often thrown out as fact, when the truth lies elsewhere. If I ask, "Why did you feel the need to take physical action against Mr X", then you'll have to articulate your reasons. "I was in fear of my safety", is another nonsense that we hear all too often. If I ask, "Why was you in fear of your safety", then what is your answer? Can you describe the events leading up to the physical confrontation in clear detail and have you practiced doing so? If on your way home today you stopped at a shop can you describe the people you saw, their clothing, hair colour, what car they got out of, what you overheard them saying, etc? If you wrote that down as a police statement how happy would you be with it? If you did the statement again in a few hours, or tomorrow, would it defer in any way. Now if there was a 20 person brawl and you were caught up in it how would your immediate read? Would it be clear and precise, or would it be better after a day or so when you had time to digest what had happened? Did you make the correct decisions, or would you have perhaps done something differently? Could you have left earlier, or maybe used verbal skills to avoid a fight? Would or should you have gone physical earlier and if so why? What did you hear and see that in hindsight allows you go physical sooner? I could list another thousand things but the point is that as a trained martial artist specialising in self protection I can if needed use it to my advantage. "Simon, you hit my client and I understand you are a trained martial artist, so could you have avoided going physical?" "No, I have been training for 39 years and specialise in self protection. I have studied many forms of combat and understand both physical and verbal cues etc, etc, etc. Long story short - if someone needs sending to sleep, then they need sending to sleep and your job as a martial artist of you have any regard for self defence is to understand why. You'll then have a platform to articulate your argument. I don't have to decide when to "go", as I know when to go and I can tell you why. @Mr. Tickles, I have re-opened the thread and you are free to disagree with me, but do not start trolling the self defence forum with nonsense. The reason it is policed differently is because of the subject matter. We are a discussion forum and people find us by doing Google searches and the like. We don't want disinformation out there.
I've never heard of anyone getting nailed in court because they trained boxing, and won a fist fight. And "defend yourself" can mean so many things, everything between yelling at someone and killing them. Didn't we just watch a kid trained in rifle shooting get off on Self Defense successfully, after killing two people in rapid succession? It's not like the kid picked up the gun from the street and didn't know how to use it. He knew exactly how to use that rifle. I'm not arguing the morals of that case, just the fact that if a kid can get off on SD for rifle killings in the street, which martial art training is going to hurt you in court, again? I can't think of any time I've ever heard of this except maybe once or twice, and it was cases of the "self defender" really going overboard on a weaker target.
Law is for everyone. Or should be. Not for special people. Self defence and self protection is an industry and business where by which its sold that if you do this course or that course or train with these people or that people or buy this book or that book or whatever you will be better off. Give me your money and tickle my ego. No law, in Britain at least that I know of, states that if you have more knowledge about the law than others then you have special privileges. No law states that to defend yourself you need to know about laws or have indepth knowledge. Self defence " involves no abstruse legal thought. Only common sense is needed for its understanding" That's closer to the real truth Now, there's no harm in a person wanting to know more about laws and go as indepth as they like. Maybe it does help them somehow in some capacity. Maybe some people have no self controlled during violence and need to know limits...who knows. But to claim, like alot do to sell themselves, that they are special and can give you special knowledge, be it special moves or tactics or special knowledge about laws is less truthfull that saying that law is for everyone and a situation is infinity variable and each situation is taken as itself by the police, and jury etc if it goes that far. You just tell the truth. Simple. If its actualy not like that and there's a biased with the person who tries to manipulate the situation using there knowledge of law, then it shouldn't be accepted and the law and police and the system is disgusting. Just because a person is in to self defence and knows all about the law doesn't make them a ' good guy ' who now is correct. They could be bullying, passive aggressive , two faced , cowardly scumbags who use their knowledge to appear authoritarian or a certain way.
