View Full Version : ethics ethics ethics..
12-08-2001, 10:24 PM
Hey y'all!! Man im on a posting roll today :)
I picked up the papers today and read something rather sad in my opinion...a man was jailed for 7 yrs for stabbing this aussie guy, but wait hear the full story. Aussie chap's drunk, comes to this guy's table, guy's with his frens ok? Aussie dude says stuff which the guy doesnt understand, this happens twice and the aussie's fren comes over to apologise. Third time round, aussie dude, who later was found to have high amts of alcohol and Ecstasy in his urine, comes to the guy's table and draws a pen-knife, scuffle ensues and guy stabs the aussie with the latter's weapon..of course the guy's frens join in and kick and punch the aussie...
im thinking that the stabbing was probably during the scuffle and at the heat of the moment, i mean c'mon the aussie drew the weapon first didnt he? Isnt that a valid threat to my life? SO is it JUSTIFIED to retaliate the way the guy did? He got 7 yrs in sunny singapore...
the reason why this bothered me is cuz a day before my fren who was drunk had the pleasure of having a guy wrap his arms arnd her on the dance floor. I was taking care of her but just happened to be with someone else at that time,but if i had seen that happen, i would have cautioned the chap and if a scuffle had ensued then i would have resorted to technique to end the fight, provided he struck first of course... the fear is that i might be so pissed off that i use excessive force ie after say i pin him i do something stoopid like smash the back of his head to make sure he's down or break his nose and if that kills him?...sigh i noe this is all hypothetical but hoping to receive some guidance from those who've been there done that..or anyone with thoughts, especially on the first issue...thanks for enduring the long thread....
12-08-2001, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by arvin m.
but if i had seen that happen, i would have cautioned the chap and if a scuffle had ensued then i would have resorted to technique to end the fight, provided he struck first of course... the fear is that i might be so pissed off that i use excessive force ie after say i pin him i do something stoopid like smash the back of his head to make sure he's down or break his nose and if that kills him?...sigh i noe this is all hypothetical but hoping to receive some guidance from those who've been there done that..or anyone with thoughts, especially on the first issue...thanks for enduring the long thread....
May I recommend www.senshido.com . An eye-opening revelation, that site is.
I ordered their TUC tape set, and it's a priceless wake-up call to the realities of self-defense. Even just watching those tapes may save your life.
(NO this is not a sales pitch, just genuine feedback).
12-10-2001, 05:48 AM
OK just a short post.
Legal systems differ all over the world, but just speaking for my neck of the woods, unlike what many people may think, having the other guy provoke the fight or letting him have the 'first swing' DOES NOT automatically qualify your retaliation as self defense. What will usually be taken into account is the actual progression of the fight and the exchange of violence; this means that in trading blows, if you're the superior fighter and you damage the asshole who's been provoking you without getting damaged yourself, chances are YOU will be the one facing harsher penalties.
Self-defence will probably be limited to minimal protection of yourself from bodily harm - if you really think about it, in fighting and brawling, "who started it first" just doesn't cut it as a reason for participation. This probably sounds unreasonable to people who haven't studied law, and who knows, the situation may be different for where you live, but modern society has built a lot of rules around violence. The best thing is just to get out and call the police.
12-12-2001, 03:14 AM
The best thing is just to get out and call the police.
Surprise, surprise... I've read it in a self defence book that US police are not obligated by law to come and rescue you when you're being mugged, assaulted or such. Of course the book was also trying to sell itself and thereby stressing the importance of learning self defence.
However, even if the police come at your every whim, provided of course you had the time to call them while periodically being hit on the head with a cudgel, they probably won't be able to come in time to safe the remnants of the said head. Thus, by far its more important to defend yourself, and you have every right to do that. By law.
But the defence must be appropriate to the amount of force being used to attack you. If the guy is armed with a knife, you can't use a gun to retaliate. If there were two of them, then you are probably justified at using arms.
Also, when defending yourself, it must be up to the point where you are able to extricate yourself from the attackers without further coming to harm. Thus a hard counter punch sends the attacker reeling, leaving you sufficient time to leave the place. You must do so. If you continue to attack him, then self defence is ruled out.
This however does not apply if you are in your own house. I forget the extent of what you can do in your own house, but beating the crap out of that guy probably would be ok. Heh Heh :p
But of course being aikidokas yourselves you'ld probably understand that avoidance is better than an ego match with a potential assailant. :D
12-12-2001, 01:04 PM
I was once an RFD in the UK and I was unofficially given the advice "by the time we get here your assailant should be A/dead and B/ armed. If he/she is dead only your side comes out in court and if they are armed you were justified in your actions". Same police force that now effectively bans private firearm ownership.
12-12-2001, 06:19 PM
But the defence must be appropriate to the amount of force being used to attack you. If the guy is armed with a knife, you can't use a gun to retaliate.
I sincerely hope none of you take that particular piece of advice to heart, in the mistaken belief that a knife is "not THAT deadly". :)
12-13-2001, 01:11 AM
I sincerely hope none of you take that particular piece of advice to heart, in the mistaken belief that a knife is "not THAT deadly".
Never said the knife is not deadly, anything used as a weapon is deadly. If sho kosugi claims to be able to use a credit card to kill in 90 ways, i believe him. :p
The key word is, defence appropriate to the level of attack. Overkill is a definite no-no for the courts. Doesn't mean its not better to do that. Some ppl like better safe than sorry. :D
If i understand jim's post correctly, it'll be a good idea to shoot the attacker, then plant another gun on him. ;)
vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2012 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited