This thread is all about justifying your actions legally, morally and ethically in regard to defending yourself. One of us will post a video and you'll be asked to take on the role of one of the people in the clip. You will need to explain your actions, as if you are being questioned by the police. We will try to act as the other party's lawyer and find loopholes in your argument. In addition it may be a situation where one person's actions either escalated the situation, or settled the issue without a physical confrontation. We will look at how and why those actions, or body language had such an effect. Given the subject matter there will be some bad language, in addition to fighting, possibly with weapons and possibly bloodshed. That said if you do post a video please do try and find one that is suitable for MAP and do also post a warning. There are some horrendous clips on You Tube and they aren't really suitable. What we want from this thread is a greater understanding of how one's actions and words have such an effect. Up to this point we have people posting links to legal sites regarding what you can and can't do. This thread is about physically and verbally putting it into action.
In this first clip there is bad language and at the end someone does get shot in the face with a pellet gun. This clip does show the wound, but it isn't much worse than as if he'd been jabbed with a pencil. Firstly I'd like one of you to take on the role of the person with the camera, who faces the gunman. What would you have done?
Great idea for a thread Simon. There is a lack of context preceding the video, but if I been the man holding the camera I would have tried to do one or more of the following: 1) stopped egging the 'gunman' on; 2) maintained a safe distance, preferably inside the (locked) car; 3) contacted the police and provided video footage of the man carrying the air pistol in public. I'm assuming the cameraman was filming because he saw the 'gunman' carrying a weapon in public, but there's also every chance this was a feud between two people who know each other. Nobody should get shot in the face and the 'gunman' should face prosecution, but in this case the cameraman was literally asking for it.
Brilliant idea for a thread, after action debriefs (or, being able to 'talk the talk') are a massively underutilized part of a Self Protection skill set. As soon as the gun was raised/shown, I would have started to back (not turn) away - The camera man had nothing to gain, and potentially everything to lose, by not taking the threat seriously. Travess
This thread isn't about criticism, just learning, but I nearly almost advocate not backing away. The problem with backing away is the aggressor can grow into that space. Your retreat can be a sign of weakness that is filled by the other guy.
No criticism assumed, or taken. The Gunman's 1st remark, outside of responding to a question, is 'Go away' so taking that on face value, It would still be my initial course of action - How I'd then proceed would be based in his re-action. Standing my ground could have been dismissive of his demands, as could closing the distance, either of which could easily have been perceived as confrontational/retaliatory in action. It would be remiss to assume that his threats bore no weight (he had both means and opportunity) and personally I'd have sooner been under fire at a distance, than at a closer range. Travess
The whole video to me was one long provocation, there was some reference to the “gunman” allegedly damaging the camera mans car , he should have walked away after the first section had been filmed (it looked to me that was more than one confrontation) , and shown the footage to the police as the other guy was quite obviously breaking the law waving an air pistol around in public.
There are many times throughout the video where the cameraman could have walked away and been compliant. Errors are made within the first few seconds and it's clear to me the gunman doesn't want to pull the trigger. This is a clear indication that it could all have ended in just a few seconds. With that said can anyone else spot mistakes further on in the clip?
3 things that stood out to me, which is in no way an exhaustive list. 1) It appears (though there is a clear cut in the video, so we cannot be sure whether or not the events are all a part of a singular incident) that the gunman gets in his car, and leaves the scene (even if he only gets as far as around the corner) which would have given the phoneman ample opportunity to leave/get himself to a safe(r) place - But he chose not to (potentially antagonizing the gunman further, to bring about his return) 2) Once the gunman does make his second showing, the phoneguy allows him to get up close (too close) and personal, with only his trusty phone as his 'fence' 3) It becomes clear at the end, that the phoneguy was not alone, and that the other person was driving a car - Meaning he could have a) used the vehicle as a means of escape, when one was offered to him, or after the gunman had 1st left (or as a 'fence' but then he may have needed a follow up) and b) There was somebody else's wellbeing that should have been considered, had things escalated further. Travess
I feel this has been said already about the clip in a other ways; but the language on its own (which is appears to be an attempt to call his bluff) is giving permission for the attack. (Mutually agreed violence?) Written down as text and reread out (in court or during and interview) without context could be interpreted as verbal permission to be shot. I think most will see from the video that it probably wasnt the intention, or maybe it was an attempt to weigh in legal action against the man with the air gun as previous attempts to get police involved have not been successful (he says in the video that the police could not action as there was no evidence). So whether it was his intention or not to get shot, the words as they are on face value appear to grant permission to be shot.
What a couple of Muppets doing the monkey dance. This is such a clear case of two egos clashing. Take away the ego (on both sides) and none of that would have happened. Although my sympathy is with the guy who was injured. Clearly the guy with the gun is a coward (hence the need to arm himself and threaten) and didn't want to be called on his behaviour. Given his actions I think it's clear he is likely in the wrong from the outset while the guy who gets shot is trying to challenge him about that wrongdoing. Once he'd made the threat to shoot egging him on removed his loophole to not shoot. At that point it was an ego challenge and his ego and sense of self (don"t mess with me I'm dead hard!) pretty much "made" him shoot. Once the challenge was met with a weapon and threat to shoot the injured party should have made a tactical exit and reported it to the police with the footage. Although it's likely the guy with the gun is known to him and even that course of action could be fraught with retribution and later confrontations.
Completely agree with @axelb. If anyone deserved to get shot it was this guy. There is a communication tool called bataris box and it explains how one's behaviour and words affect the course of further actions. My attitude affects My behaviour which affects Your attitude which affects Your behaviour which affects My attitude And so on.
WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO: Peterborough man who shot man in the face with air gun is sectioned Looks like the gunman (William More) was sectioned under the mental health act - He, in addition to the BB gun, had a knife, and 2 scalpels on him, at the time of his arrest - I do not believe that there is an expiry date on his term. Travess
The self-defense discussion should also include the discussion to protect your love ones, or innocent people. The concern of self-defense is simple. You can always avoid it if you can run faster than your opponent. To protect your love ones, or to protect the innocent people is a complete different situation. You can't just run away. You have to stand up, face it, and take the risk. It takes just one brave and skilled MA person to save the whole passengers lives in that bus in the following clip. How hard can that be to swing a heavy luggage on on the back of that bad guy's head? MOD Note: Links deleted. This isn't about fake movie clips, or fakery that will get people harmed.
Well then. Post a clip that discusses this scenario. Simon explained very clearly how this thread works.
So much wrong with one post. The concern of self defence isn't about being able to run fast. Do a search and watch people being chased then stabbed. It's horrific. Self defence is 90% avoidance, but that requires an understanding of some simple actions, then training in de-escalation, body language and so on. Protecting loved ones or other innocent people isn't a different situation. It's exactly the same and with the same set of rules (slight changes in the UK for defending yourself in your property). In regard to standing up and taking a chance again you are wrong. Not everyone will stand up and take action. We would have all seen a video of a lout on a bus that is dealt with by being hit by a woman with a bag. Why didn't others stand up and take action? Well there is fight or flight and the 3 stages of adrenal reaction. In a milli-second people worry about their own safety, their family, the police, others that may join the fight etc. Martial arts and self defence is easy, but you have to factor in the mental anguish and self doubt and that changes the game massively. This thread is about explaining and discussing the above in the hope that we leave with a greater understanding.
I was discussing with Iain Abernethy (on another forum) the nature of 'escaping' in a self defence situation and how so many people pay lip-service to it by just saying 'run away'. As if that's the end of it. Saying 'run away' is about as useful as advising someone to 'hit them' when talking about striking. There are better ways to do it than others, tactical and strategic considerations, ways to incapacitate the threat to facilitate escape, where are you running to, how can you use your environment, areas with more people, traffic, cctv, etc.
