How necessary is hard/full contact for realistic training? Why?

When you say 'ambush' do you really mean they gave you a wedgie then went home to catch the end of Power Rangers and have their tea ?

 

What's self defence?

 

How am I supposed to prove either way that it was a very specific circumstance? It's just my word they have to go by. That's why my previous record could be of importance.

I have read the law and can cite the passage if you like. But I will have to look it up first.

 

And there's another reason why you should train more, read more and listen more. Rather than tell everyone how things should be.

You are clueless in many areas.

 

Name your country - it isn't difficult

 

Some of us have sufficient experience and knowledge not to need to look up the relevant legislation. But that's because we lecture on it for a living, work or teach in security or law enforcement, or take a professional interest in the best interests of our students.

You might find this thread of use.
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107937

 

I think you misread my post. People don't usually need to use self defence in court.

 

One would expect the same of biblical scholars or historians. Or someone taking an interest in these subject matters at large.

I don't study law and if the intention is to qoute a passage, One would be well advised to actually recount word for word what is stated.

 

Name your country

 

The deflection level in this post...

 

What have I deflected from in his post?

 

So you telling people that according to the legislation of your country - wherever your country is, which you keep failing to mention despite being asked - allows you to kill people and how the law should play out is pretty stupid, no?

 

Wow, seriously?

JWT was pointing out there's a few members of MAP who are actually in a fairly good position to comment on whether you were right or wrong. You responded by talking about how biblical scholars and historians might also do the same in their fields of interest.

What relevance was that to the point of discussion that you raised?

 

Name your country

 

First-Nothing is "specific" in Karate. Karate is too broad of a term to simply make it one style-one category

No, you are not allowed to kill, even in self defense. There are levels of self defense and it will not be "the court" which decides your legal fate, it will be the jury of your peers. If you seem to be one that was "looking to kill in self defense" (which in some forms of self defense this is needless use of force), you can be in for a rude awakening in court

And no, don't be foolish to follow the cliche'; I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107937

I get weary whenever someone talks about a confrontation on how the opponent count is "x"many-"x"many. This makes it seem exaggerated because the speaker does not have a clue how many there were. They should have, because the first rule of self defense is awareness. Also, there is always a phrase: gang, big dudes, street brawler, hockey players with wedgies, etc.

Agree. Usually a death/killing in self defense is either ;too much force for the situation, i.e. manslaughter or on the more rare occasion, life was truly in danger

As I stated, depends on the jury, not "the court". you make it sound like you have a "total right to kill"

When you are up against 7-10 Big Guys

Citing law is not the same upon a situation, physical defense, and legal outcome. That is why there are lawyers. Unless you are one and have defended many of these cases, I do not think you are qualified

One would be advise to listen to people here and wash out your incorrect "beliefs"

United Plains of 7-10 Big Guys

 

How many people misunderstood the fact that I was pointing out the problem with the first statement. Laws have very specific wording: once you start playing fast and loose with how you relay them you end up with silly statements or ones whose meaning can be misunderstood.

As itf-taekwondo is using a particular set of spellings I'll work under the assumption that he/she is in the UK.

If you are in Europe (the political entity which includes the UK) under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act:

There is an onus to protect life, but under 2(ii)

This is clarified further by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which states

The interpretation of this is clarified further (and what had been practice under case law was set in statute) in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, Section 76 which states

It is legal to use lethal force in self defence in the UK if you believe (while not under the influence of any drugs) that the threat to you is lethal (and of course death can legally occur through misfortune with force that was not intended to be lethal). You will have to satisfy other people that that was the case.

There are differences between intent and outcomes. If I knock a man down in self defence (which does mean a particular set of circumstances - in other words I should normally have tried to avoid, calm or exit the situation) who I believe is about to hit me, or who is already hitting me, the force used is likely to be viewed as necessary and reasonable. That remains the case even if by misadventure on hitting the ground he sustains a fatal injury. If while the man is down and poses no threat to me I hit him then that force is not necessary, and therefore cannot be viewed as reasonable and is illegal unless I can successfully argue that I believed he still (at that moment in time) seemed to pose an immediate threat. If having knocked the man down he not only is trying to get up but also shows a willingness to continue to attack then hitting him while down may be viewed as necessary and reasonable if exiting the environment safely is not an option.

 

Which is exactly what I wrote, for those paying attention. I specifically made it clear: In order to survive. No other reasonable options, e.t.c

 

That isn't exactly what you wrote at all, what you wrote was

"I would have no hesitation doing what it takes to survive. I am allowed in a court of law to kill in self defence."

You didn't make "no other reasonable option" specifically clear for those paying attention, as you only mentioned that in you post just now.

 

Got trouble reading?

 

This is where your inexperience is showing.

You can't just claim something was self defence and think it'll all be fine.

Can you successfully articulate and justify why you acted in the way that you did.

Did you actually act appropriately or did you exacerbate the situation in some way.

Keep in mind that by claiming self defence you are automatically admitting your guilt as far as what you did to him, it's just that you are claiming that circumstances dictated your actions.

So are you capable of knowing when to act?

Can you act appropriately and along a force continuum?

Can you then make it clear why you acted and what lead up to those actions?