Grahame Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 It would be petty to be nasty after you'd been killed trying to do some sort of armlock/throw on a hammer wielding attacker. So at least if I couldn't say anything nice, i'd say nothing. You are so kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 Got rather off topic here, but saxon51 declined to comment (his views on another thread are why I started this one). But no one really supports the view of 'you should be able to knock them down and then kick them repeatedly in the head', as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grahame Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Got rather off topic here, but saxon51 declined to comment (his views on another thread are why I started this one). But no one really supports the view of 'you should be able to knock them down and then kick them repeatedly in the head', as far as I can see. I think a lot of people would like to take the law into their own hands and meet out the punishment, it provides instant justice and with a bit of luck they won't be back again and they may even stop whatever it is they were doing? Job sorted. It is just that speaking for myself, I was thinking about the legal aspect which seems to be at odds with peoples gut feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think a lot of people would like to take the law into their own hands and meet out the punishment, it provides instant justice and with a bit of luck they won't be back again and they may even stop whatever it is they were doing? Job sorted. It is just that speaking for myself, I was thinking about the legal aspect which seems to be at odds with peoples gut feelings. I think you're correct Grahame, in that a lot of would like to take the law into their own hands - but it's my view that to tolerate, or actively encourage that stance (as some on here appear to do) is a very dangerous and irresponsible thing to do. Not only is it incompatible with being a law - abiding citizen, but it can and does go spectacularly wrong and in the end vigilante 'justice' merely adds to the sum total of human misery. I can't help but wonder how some of the enthusiastic supporters of the 'giving the scrotes a good kicking' camp would feel if they were to put their ideas into practice and ended up killing someone. I daresay there'll be those who'll say '' No problem, they deserved it'', but I'm damned sure they'd feel differently if someone dies at their hands. (Or feet, for those who like the idea of kicking people when they're on the floor.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 being that "you" know how to defend yourself expertly, you know how to disarm and injure expertly, and are trained in the art of self defence. so if a youth - who you calculated you could disarm with your skill threatened you and you pre empted his attack, would that not be unreasonable if not unnecessary force. as you are the expert ,and the attack would be unfairly weighted in your favour. it could be viewed that way from a jury standpoint - you've almost "taken a gun to a knife fight". From my view, anyone should be entitled to defend themselves. Training or not. As for the attack being unfairly weighted, quite frankly I find that laughable. NO training method makes you indistructable, but the training does help you understand that your not indistructable. The view you have presented here that someone training in a fighting art/sport has an unfair advantage is one (of many) reason(s) I have gone out of my way to avoid fights when many other blokes would have gone for it. Not because I feel I have a particularly strong advantage in a fight, but that an uneducated jury/court would take the same view as you present here resulting in me getting the prosecution instead of the aggressor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 I always wondered why that farmer Martin who was jailed for killin g one of two intruders, didn't shoot the man in the leg or foot, it seemed to others that he really had reached the end his patience as these yobs kept returning and he wanted to make sure they didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 5, 2007 Author Share Posted July 5, 2007 He was jailed for firearms offences and for shooting men from behind who were trying to run away. There is no argument for self defence if you shoot someone in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxon51 Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Got rather off topic here, but saxon51 declined to comment (his views on another thread are why I started this one). But no one really supports the view of 'you should be able to knock them down and then kick them repeatedly in the head', as far as I can see. Try reading post #35 of that thread again. My views remain the same. End of!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 Try reading post #35 of that thread again. My views remain the same. End of!! Fair enough, saxon, but people will draw their own conclusions from your refusal to debate your views....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquin Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 He was jailed for firearms offences and for shooting men from behind who were trying to run away. There is no argument for self defence if you shoot someone in the back. Running away from a man who had challenged them with a gun !!!! No gun & what would they have done to Martin ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.