Fighting and The Law

I think that is about enough.

The main problem we have about PMG's post was that he assumed a stance that made him appear that he can be considered an authority on law, something which he clearly is not. Furthermore, from a legal standpoint, he seems to lean towards the approach of a hoodlum.

That is unfortunate. Why didn't you secure the services of a lawyer? Were there no witnesses? Were you racially profiled? Why were you there in the first place? Did you provoke the attack? These questions would serve you best in the courtroom if you did not run away.

Even you don't even see the legal implications of what you say here. This approach would work in a more distopian society. But thankfully we still live in a society that governs itself with laws (at least most of the time).

Its very funny. But to use it in actual training methodology sounds much too childish.

 

ok, its not my intention to get in an argument, i use this forum as a means of serious discussion on M.A, but occasionally i like to have a joke around.
The "unltra violent combo" thing, do you seriously think I, as a senior Shodan would use that in training? i think not. Perhaps you need to lighten up a little bit.
As for the rest of of your comments regarding my post, i think its the fact that i feel force is justifed when being attacked is what bothered you, and guess what..i DO think its justifed.
The circumstances i speak of are reflections of my experiences. When a violent natured person, drunk, drug affected or otherwise, has attacked me (most often in the company of my partner or family) and ALWAYS completely unprovoked, often with intent of robbing/mugging me/us.
I will say this with no hesitation, if a person attacks brings a threat to me and my family, i will not hesitate for a second to deliver whatever method is nessisary to defend them and myself, and i i would suggest you do the same.

Aside from these points, remember one simple fact, if you are being attacked, robbed, unprovoked, you have the legal right, the moral right, and any other right you might think of to do whatever is reasonable to defend yourself.That is the point i was trying to make, if you disagree, well i feel sorry for your family should a mugger target you/them one night in a dark alley.

But heres a better idea, lets behave in a manner becoming of martial artists, agree to disagree and be done with it.

 

Ooooh! Sooo sorrry!

I like to joke around too. But you must agree that any discussions related to the law tend to be very serious.

As a senior Shodan of course not. My statement about it was not meant as an attack to you. I get the your smiley at the end there.

Two things here: you may have never read the whole discussion on this thread and/or you have misinterpreted my post. You see when you agreed with PGM you gave the impression that you agreed with everything he said including all his counter-arguments. If you go through this threads pages again, you would see comments from a practicing lawyer (criminal law I think) and a policeman. Both disagreed with PGM's position because he wrote an article concerning the law when his experience of it is somewhat lacking.

Sure go right ahead. I'm all for it. But remember that all of us have to uphold certain legal responsibilities in the society we live in.

Well you also said this:

It was already shown in this thread that it was not well thought and proven that it was not even that informative. The 'don't run after' has some legal basis when it's time to state your case before a judge.

My advantage is that I know how the legal system works where I live. Can you say the same?

Be done with it?! I thought this thread was already done when Hannibal and BKG grounded PGM's legal background. Agreeing to disagree is something that is allowable in the theology and philosophy forum. But here in the articles forum and especially in law you must defend your position.

 

Well said AML,

I'm honest enough to acknowledge a well said response. You're whole post was fair and reasonable, so my apologies if i misinterpreted anything.
One thing i must ask though, was this line a veiled way of suggesting I don’t know the law in my city?

My advantage is that I know how the legal system works where I live. Can you say the same?

You seem logical and reasonable enough, assuming that i don’t know the law would be foolish on your part. (Not that I’m saying that’s what you are doing).
Perhaps i misinterpreted that as a passive aggressive suggestion of my ignorance, but in the event that you intention was in fact that.

Absolutely i know the law in my city/state. You don’t need to be a legal practitioner to know the law. This information (law ('m sure you know) is not exclusive to lawyers etc. Anyone who has interest an interest in law can learn if they so choose. I have 'so chosen, and the fact that in matters of my/and my families safety have chosen to disregard the law, doesn’t mean i do not know them.
In my opinion (and i know many people will throw their hands into the air and disapprove) i don’t give a flying @%@^#& what the law says, if i am in danger, i will do whatever is needed to defend myself. If this means standing before a magistrate or judge, so be it.

Take care all

Paradoks

 

No. It was an explicit way of saying that you may not know enough.

Nope. Read above.

I repeat, I only implied that you may not know enough of the law to handle this sort of jam (which is why lawyers have jobs). I will never assume any person to be ignorant of their basic rights, especially across the world wide web.

Sure. But can you be certain of defending yourself in front of a judge and a jury of your peers with what you know?

This was the kind of attitude that had us (PGM's detractors) "throwing our hands up." I do not disagree that you should defend yourself should the need arise, what I was reacting upon was that you agreed 9with PGM) that fleeing the scene of the incident was the correct legal thing to do.

The law allows for mitigating circumstances in self defence. Acting the responsible individual just helps prove that you're not the criminal.

Do not take legal advice from people who do not know enough of it as PGM has admitted in his previous posts.

 

now come one budddddy! lol just when i thought you were reasonable!

You should be in the media the way you cut them quotes together to make it look like i repeat myself. Yes in the one post i reapeated that, so how am i suppose to know your response? Maybe i did'nt explain that too clearly, but damn...thats some tabloid media style manipulatation of my words, lol nice work.
Secondly, as for the whole fleeing argument, i stand by it %100. I would argue that i was in fear, and that i ran on a reflex of self preservation. Like i said, an animal will run when in threat, and we are just animals (especially in high stress situations).
Also, I could argue that i had been taught this (which i have)

"Martial arts is about self defense! when you have the opportuinty too flee, then do so. Make an opening, strike, find a gap to slip through, and run. There is no shame in running, dont have the M.A ego that you MUST stay and fight. The goal is defending yourself, and what better way to defend yourself then to escape the need for a conflict all together"

Kinda makes sense huh??? so the whole 'dont run' argument, IN MY OPINION...is total B.S. I say, if you feel the desire to run, put on your damn addidas and hit the road! (yeah yeah yeah, i'm no lawyer) well you dont have to be to know whats the safest way to preserve your life and ensure your safety.

I'm so tired of MAN law, its god damned rediculous. To worry about what some old man behind a bench is gonna do to you (community service, restraining order, community based orders) pleeeeeeeeease! as if any of that holds a candle to being seriously injured. And before you throw up a post about 'ohhhh prison! prison!!! no no! you dont wanna go to prison!!"
Have you been there??????? I dont make statements this extreme if i dont know of what i speak, and with that said prison aint that bad. People see movies and think, oh no! im gonna get bent over in the showers! im gonna become someones sex slave! im gonna get beaten by guards!
Thats film, not reality, do you have any idea how easy %99 of them guys are to put down anyway? (the inmates not the guards)
But even before the whole "fear or fear not prison" debate, Do you have any idea how many crimes a person can getaway with in some western country's before a custodial sentence is imposed??? Well i do, and its a LOT!
Unless you kill a man, or rob a bank, murder someone, it takes a mountain of repeat offences before you end up with custodial sentences (In my country at least, and yeah yeah, U.S 3 strikes, god bless america, blah blah blah).

A lot of silver spoon law spoutin middle/upper class 'men?' could use a little time in the dirt with the naughty kids anyway. Remind you that we're all humans, even the baaad bad men!"

Life is a lot more then some book of regulations written by other men. Who are they to dictate right from wrong. Yeah they got the power to pass THEIR judgements, but they aint god are they. I know whats right and whats not, i dont need a judge to tell me, and if i get put in a cage for standing up for what i believe, so be it. Good enough for mandella, good enough for me.

Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war!

Paradoks

 

Reasonable with what? Anybody just acting irresponsibly?

Don't worry you explained it clear enough. I hope I explained myself enough too.

Ah! But you also said that PGM's article was logical and well-thought out (which means you agree with everything in it).

If you read PGM's post he said that you beat the guy first within an inch of his life then run away. He didn't say that you should take any measures to avoid nor cut short any encounters.

PGM's post was not about self-defense alone. It was about the legal implications of self-defence.

I don't know about where you're from but you don't want to go to prison in my country.

Sure a person can get away with a lot of things. But does this mean that we should do them just because we can get away with it?! Now that is B.S. !!!

The whole article was meant to apply to all financial classes.

I can even throw that back to you: Who are you to dictate write and wrong for everyone?

The Nazis actually believed that the world would be better off without the Jews. The White Power movement believes that the elimination of ALL non-white races is morally justified.

Unleash the dogs of war?! Maybe if you get a taste of it you'd change your mind.

 

This is like a tennis match! lol but hey, it’s been civilized all the way, so it’s fine by me. Even though we disagree, you speak like a gentleman. I actually complimented you a couple of posts back, and you felt compelled to continue the debate. Ok, you want to debate, and then let’s debate.

I’m semi-p.c handicapped, so I’ll have to quote you without the quote function.
Your first statement;

Reasonable with what? Anybody just acting irresponsibly?

The opposite of reasonable is not irresponsible, it’s ‘unreasonable’ obviously.
And I am referring to a reasonable argument, or reasonable line of thinking and reasoning.

‘Ah! But you also said that PGM's article was logical and well-thought out (which means you agree with everything in it).’

Which means I agree with everything he said??? Are you kidding me?? Could you jump to any bigger a conclusion here? I don’t think it’s necessary to say how completely ridiculous that statement was.

Also, you keep saying PGM said this; PGM said that, how about you focus on what I’ve said rather then his, after all, this debate is between you, based on your arguments and me and mine. Just because I tipped my hat to the article, doesn’t mean I agree unequivocally with every point. I’ve made my point of view as clear as possible, and all you can do is throw PGM’s arguments at me.

PGM's post was not about self-defense alone. It was about the legal implications of self-defense.

As for that statement, tell me something I don’t know. The point I was making there was that the logic of self defense is in alignment with the argument that running is a reasonable and easily supported/justified argument. Which you have not been able to dispute by presenting a solid argument.

I don't know about where you're from but you don't want to go to prison in my country.

As for that, I wouldn’t dare dispute that. Asia is reputed for its inhuman prison. I would guess PGM lives in a western country, where you are treated like a human being, so your level of fearing prison is rather different to ours. On that note, the damn law would be very different also. I wouldn’t argue the law in Asia with an Asian. Perhaps you might not want to argue law\in the west with a westerner…but oh, I forgot. You know everything.

Sure a person can get away with a lot of things. But does this mean that we should do them just because we can get away with it?! Now that is B.S. !!!

Now there you go again jumping to those conclusions again, are you female? Italian perhaps? You should be the way you exaggerate. I never said anything about breaking the damn law mate. I talked about defending yourself. My point was that defending yourself when attacked is no reason to fear prison. That was my point, and I think you know it. Do you just debate for the sake of disagreeing or something? You being such an amazing legal intellect should know that in law, you base your arguments on what has been said. On precisely what has been said. If you made such huge sweeping statements like that on a legal forum (and no I don’t mean internet forums) you’d be making a fool of yourself.

As for the ‘applies to all financial classes, yes, again tell me something I don’t know.
My point was that its middle to upper class people who can afford to think the way you advocate. Those of us on the bottom rung will almost always need to think about survival before legal ramifications, and often, we got nothing to lose anyway.


I can even throw that back to you: Who are you to dictate write (‘right’ by the way, you’re going to tell people what right is, and you can’t even spell the damn word. Well done buddy) and wrong for everyone?

Now you’re starting to irritate me, you’re like a fly at a BBQ! Did I EVER say that everyone should do what I say? NO. I explained my view, my opinions; you are the one who steps up saying I’m wrong. The way I choose to handle a situation is my choice, and I have every right to express my opinions. Who the hell are you to step up and say what I believe is wrong? And I’M the one who’s trying to dictate right and wrong for EVERYONE? Take a look in the mirror sunshine.

And as for your whole NAZI ramblings, if you are trying to suggest that I’m anywhere on the low and disgusting immoral level they are, you best be very careful what you say. I myself have been targeted by them reptiles in my life, and next to child rapists they are the lowest form of human life on this planet (INO) so if that was just you bringing up something totally irrelevant to the argument, fine, so be it. Its not the first time you have. But if it’s trying to put me on a parallel with them…I would suggest you think twice before saying anything such as that again.

Unleash the dogs of war was written by Shakespeare, perhaps you should look into an education before commenting. It’s a direct quote, and in this context meant ‘bring on your argument’ you really have no idea do you?

If you have a sensible argument to anything I've said, go right ahead. If its the same senseless exagerated rambling, you might as well save it for the birds.

be well

paradoks

 

A debate is a tennis match. The compliment was taken (the sarcasm too by the way) and the match went on, like what we're going to do now.

If you won't use yhe quote function please put my words in quotation marks so I can distinguish easier (Some didn't have any). Thanks.

Yes I know. Its just that running away from the scene of the incident under those circumstances seem irresponsible which when I took into context was not reasonable.

I concede that. But if not, then why did you say that it was logical and well-thought out when you think there are points there that deserve serious criticism? You could have just stated where and why you agreed with him.

This comment of yours even seems to come out that you did not read the article he wrote thouroughly.

This argument is based on what PGM said and you're agreement of it (or at least as you claim part of it). We are debating on the correctness of PGM's post (at least legally). That is why I am quoting PGM a lot.

If you want a debate strictly concerning your views you can start another thread. But my argument with you is actually your opinions on PGM's post.

I get your context when you advocate running. Running when the assailant is sufficiently incapacitated is something I agree whole-heartedly. This may have a good probability to lie in the area of reasonable force. If you read back I already agreed and conceded with you on this context.

But not in PGM's context. His article began okay but here is where it began to feel wrong:

In his context, you should flatten people, then run away. Its after the fight where self-defence (for your life) is not an issue anymore. This is why I can't agree with it. Which is why I'm having this argument with you.

Although the law would be different, the same circumstances will look suspicious to any police officer in any country which in turn will not help you in an any court in any nation. Why run away when you are obviously in the right?

I followed BKG's and Hannibal's lead on this one. As to knowing everything ... you come across that nicely as well.

Quit with the personal attacks dude. While doing that, quit with the racial and gender slurs.

The only conclusions I jump onto is based on what I can read from your posts.

That is what came across when you said this:

You actually come across here is saying that you can violate the law and not go to prison provided that you control the number fo repeat offenses. If this was not your intention clarify it then phrase your posts better.

I got that. Your point that PGM's post was logical and well-thought out is what I'm having problems with. Running when the assailant is obviously incapacitated and not staying for the cops to make your side of the story makes your involvement in the incident questionable.

Do you reort to character attacks when somebody challenges the veracity of your ideas?

From what I can read back, that is what I have been doing. You can also say something that may mean differently to other people which is why some statements need exposition.

You're doing fine yourself, dude. Why? You're resorting to these kinds of outbursts.

Ok. But if you're country doesn't at least provide you with lawyers for your defense for free, then I feel sorry for you guys.

So sooorrrry. I was sleepy at the time and my hand typed the wrong word. I'm human and I make mstakes too (though I try to limit them). I hope the rest of my grammar is good enough for you.

Of course you have the right to express your opinions (and its great that that is how things still are). Too bad that this statement comes out that you're irritated because I have a right to express mine too.

You said on an earlier post that you questioned others capability to asess right and wrong. This is why I threw in that particular comment.

I hope that last sentence was not a gender slur.

Its relevance in this argument lies in my position that people should really think twice on what they think is right, which is the only way that they can be on parallel with you.

Quote me any statement you might think is irrelevant and I will explain why I think they are relevant.

.

I know its a quote. Although in the context of this thread and what you are saying to me lately it doesn't seem appropriate. See, already this comment can generate wierd implications when viewed in a different context.

As to an education, the fact that I don't feel it necessary to attack your character to have a good debate with you speaks for itself.

LOL!!!

Paradoks, your posts look to be degenerating more and more to personal attacks to myself and not against my ideas. If you accuse me of saying anything irrelevant maybe you should look into how you comment on my spelling, or in your sarcastic comments on whether I should choose a career in journalism. Furthermore, being male or female (or being Italian) doesn't limit anybody from participating in an intelligent debate.

 

This Thread Should Be Closed

Simply put AML,

Thats enough, if you wish to claim victory...bya ll means, go ahead. think whatever you like, even say whatever you like.
Ive come to one realisation that has saved me a lot of time and analysis of this thread. that realisation?

"regardless what i say, if im right, or wrong. This annoys me, YOU annoy me, this whole argument makes me look awful, and contributes nothing constructive to MAP, or my life. So i'm done with you.

I in fact did write a response. a long, agonisng analysis of your posts. Then i realised, you have no idea what you speak of. You dont live in Australia, America, or England. You're Asian, and live in Asia. You break down sentences you dont even fully understand, and i attempt to break down sentences you have written that are not even correct use of english.

I would never in my right mind argue laws in Asia, even if i knew a lot about them, i could never argue with people who live that law every day. It would just be so dumb to even attempt that in my opinion.

This is the end. You've insulted me to no end. claiming i am, or i think like a NAZI racist white supremist, then calling me a criminal, and the fact is, you dont know me from a bar of soap, and your insults are not even based fairly on my words. I believe this is because you do not understand.

A final note to you and anyone who might read this. I AM italian, that comment was a joke, a dig at myself if u will. My comment saying women egagerate was a joke also, and i would never insult women in any way.If any found that comment insulting i would (and do) apologise.

I am going to request this thread be closed, and i ask you to not refer to me in future, to refer to my comments, or adress me directly, and i will do the same for you.

comparing me to a nazi, calling me a criminal, i do not forgive, especially since you ignored my request for you to apologise for these comments.

I find you an arrogant and loathsome individual, and if you insult me or anyone else in such fashion again i will do my best to persuade moderators to ban you from MAP.