"Always hit them when they're talking" - agree or disagree?

[IronFist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UMccyOHP6iE

[PalmStriker]

This may apply in open declared warfare but legally the law is on your side if you block/dodge incoming, then devastate. :)

[Ben Gash]

The law is generally on your side if you respond proportionately to a threat you believe to be real :rolleyes:

[YouKnowWho]

Hitting first has lots of advantages. Grandmaster Wei Xiao Tang suggested hitting first and hard in his book, "Practical Praying Mantis".
- GM Wei Xiao Tang always said, "When you serve hot tea, you throw hot tea at your opponent's face, and then beat him up."

- GM Chang Tung Sheng always said, "When you shake your opponent's hand, drop your upper arm to break his elbow, and then beat him up."

The TCMA world is dark and dirty. Law? What law? It's only kill or to be killed. You may not have intention to kill a tiger, but that tiger does have intention to eat you alive.

[dirtyrat]

my first teacher devoted much time to this...

[KungFuBiker]

DISAGREE,

Sorry to be shouting but there are a number of problems with this whole “strike first” philosophy as I see it.

If you hit this person while they are still talking, how in the hell do you know it would ever have escalated to the point of physical violence before a blow was ever thrown?

Morally, do you have right to injure someone (perhaps badly) who was never an actual threat?

Legally, (IMHO) I would think that if you strike first the chances are you are going to end up being arrested, persecuted, and possibly sued. And if you’ve received any sort of martial arts training chances are the judge/jury are going to come down twice as hard.

But, as has already pointed out, if you can show that you acted in a defensive manner the law is going to be on your side.

On further thought it occurs to me that it needs to be said; striking first as advocated is the action of either a bully or a coward!

[mickey]

Greetings,

I saw a demo of this kind of approach done by Ronald Duncan. It is good stuff.

In terms of hitting first, elders have the right to hit first. They can't afford otherwise.

mickey

[Lee Chiang Po]

A devious person is subject to deviate. Deceit and trickery is your friend. If you strike someone from ambush or by surprise, you can stun him for a bit. Even a large person. If you are squared off with him he will not allow this and you may get the worst of the fight. Take any and all advantage of him when you can. There are uncountable ways in which to misdirect his attention for long enough to attack him.
Violence has it's place in life. When all else fails, when reason is pushed aside, violence will decide the outcome of any conflict. Usually, the one that is in possession of the most violence will win.

[RenDaHai]

Disagree,

I agree with what Biker said above.

Plus with my experience I think many people have mental blocks to initiating violence. A lot can go wrong with a punch, you might end up not hurting them at all but have just escalated the situation.

However I can't fault a lot of what the guy said in the video, its a good tactic if you know you MUST fight.

[David Jamieson]

Sucker Punch < Skill.

Hitting someone over words denotes a simple mindedness.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Verbal threats do NOT equal physical threats.

[Scott R. Brown]

If you intend to hit first and hit hard, might as well sneak up behind your enemy and club him with a hammer!

[Lucas]

its not yes or no across the board. its yes when you can be sure, no when you cant. i have been in verbal spars knowing that it is escelating to a physical situation simply based on history with the individual and pre knowledge of what they are up to.

are we talking a total stranger every time? someone with history? an ex con with a violent history or a librarian? many times there can be factors involved that will determine whether striking first and immediately is a good, bad, safe or dangerous move.

under the right circumstances. certainly, strike first.

[Peaceful Orchid]

its not yes or no across the board. its yes when you can be sure, no when you cant. i have been in verbal spars knowing that it is escelating to a physical situation simply based on history with the individual and pre knowledge of what they are up to.

Yes, not always, but sometimes.

On a side not related to the video- Good luck expecting that a gun will be held against your head so that you have the ability to grab it.

[Lucas]

Good luck expecting that a gun will be held against your head so that you have the ability to grab it.

huh?
:confused:

[Shaolin]

http://cache.gifts.com/photos/K/N/6/G/KN6GGQQCPDTXKL89NCSX_L.jpg

Only kidding.

I remember an older documentary on Shaolin and in it Shi Suxi had stated one should be so good at their martial arts they never have to use them. I agree. The only time I fight is for money, in a ring or cage and governed by a state athletic commission.

Now there are plenty of "what if's" we could debate about all week but the truth is, don't associate with shady people, don't hang out at places where trouble could start quickly (ie. bars/clubs/parties), keep at least 6-9 feet distance between you and a stranger, pay attention to your surroundings, if you feel threatened walk away and keep an eye on the potential threat. There are other factors but this is literally day 1 self preservation information.

[YouKnowWho]

This discussion should not be only for whether you should do to your opponent or not. It should include whether you should assume that your opponent will not do to you. You may not have intention to kill a tiger, but that tiger does have intention to eat you alive. It's always good to be alert.

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. One guy challenged me for a match. After I told him that I accepted his challenged, I jumped in, attacked, and took him down. He got back up and left. That was the last time I had even seen him.

If people know that you don't fight fair, they will be unlikely to challenge you. This work well in challenge matches. Not sure it should be applied in our daily life though.

"Are you ready? Are you ready? Let get on then ..." only happen in the cage fight.

[dirtyrat]

you would only fight if there's no other recourse. skill alone cannot ensure victory, especially when you're facing down someone much larger than yourself. and let's face it. most troublemakers won't start something with you unless they feel they have an advantage (ie. size, strength, numbers, weapons, etc)

this is where tactics & strategy comes in.

a lot a guys confuse self defense and fighting (mano y mano). in self defense, the attacker doesn't care about fairness and who's tougher.

[Lucas]

do you look for trouble, or does trouble find you?

i think its both personally. the last fight i got into i was simply walking down the street to the store in my own neighborhood. i just so happened to walk by a house with several people drinking outside and someone wanted to be a tough guy and hassle me and my buddy. not the best neighborhood...but then if everyone could just move out of the bad areas in a city...there wouldnt be any. but that is not reality.

you cannot always avoid everything. i understand the whole turn the other cheek deal, but thats not me. i am not what you could call a 'compassionate warrior' that is a very high standard that i do not try to hold myself to. respect to those that do. i thought about it for a minute in my 20s...;)

[Thibodo3]

Tell that to the police.



Verbal threats do NOT equal physical threats.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Tell that to the police.

You will be hard pressed to explain to the cops that the reason you broke that guys jaw was because he said bad things about your mommy or because he said he was gonna punch your face in.
If I was to 'pre-emptively" strike every guy that "verbally assaulted" me when I was working as a bouncer, there would be wall to wall bodies at the end of the night, LMAO !

Good luck with thinking that a verbal threat gives you the right to attack someone in the eyes of the law.

[dirtyrat]

the guy in video does advocate de-escalation of the situation, as most confrontation are ego-based. if you can swallow your pride (no need to prove your manhood) and back down, then do so.

pre-emptive attacks are only for when all options are exhausted.

[Syn7]

Hitting someone over words denotes a simple mindedness.

Agreed. But alot of the time you can see that words are just what some people use to psych themselves up and get the courage to fight. If I think I am going to be attacked, words or no words, I will do my best to get in first. Defensive kung fu is alot harder to use than offensive kung fu. Why take the chance of being "honourable" with a cat who doesn't deserve it?

Anytime I feel threatened physically I will do whatever I feel I need to do to make sure I'm the one who walks away intact. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually very good at avoiding conflict in general and I can usually diffuse soon-to-be violent situations. But there's a point of no return when I feel threatened enough. If I have to dive at your face and tear out your eyes, so be it.

So, yes and no. Guess it all depends on how good of a judge you are. I know when I'm gonna be hit, and I haven't been wrong yet. I'm sure this is a common theme on this site? At least I sure hope so.

[Syn7]

This may apply in open declared warfare but legally the law is on your side if you block/dodge incoming, then devastate. :)

But is it worth the risk? Unless you take hits to the face every day, one hit may be all it takes for some cat to finish you. Why give him that hit if you know it's comming. And you are wrong about the law. I have struck first and got off because I was just defending myself. U are allowed to hit people in certain threatening situations. Especially when intimidation and/or confinement is part of it. Like standing in a doorway, the only doorway, and promissing pain to the occupant, for example. It would not be out of line to run right through the guy.

I was charged for defending myself once aswell. We each had one punch. His didn't land flush and mine did. Dude fell back and ended up in the ER with staples. I was convicted for that one too. Doesn't seem fair does it. But then the law isn't about being fair, it's about order. Otherwise I would be able to do a ton of harmless activities that are at this time quite illegal for whatever reasons.

[wenshu]

pre-emptive attacks are only for when all options are exhausted.

Then it wouldn't be preemptive.

[Lucas]

it is always a good idea to read up on your state/province self defense laws.

[Lucas]

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury.

It will be proper to consider: 1. The extent of the right of self-defence. 2. By whom it may be exercised. 3. Against whom. 4. For what causes.

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him; he ought to be secured and delivered to the public authorities. But when an attack is made by a thief under such circumstances, and it is impossible to ascertain to what extent he may push it, the law does not requite the party assailed to weigh with great nicety the probable extent of the attack, and he may use the most violent means against his assailant, even to the taking of his life. For homicide may be excused where a man has no other probable means of preserving his life from one who attacks him while in the commission of a felony, or even on a sudden quarrel he beats him, so that he is reduced to this inevitable necessity. And the reason is that when so reduced, he cannot call to his aid the power of society or of the commonwealth, and being unprotected by law, he reassumes his natural rights which the law sanctions, of killing his adversary to protect himself.

The party attacked may undoubtedly defend himself, and the law further sanctions the mutual and reciprocal defence of such as stand in the near relations of hushand and wife, patent and child, and master and servant. In these cases, if the party himself or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in their person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force, for the law in these cases respects the passions of the human mind, and makes it lawful in him, when external violence is offered to himself, or to those to whom he bears so near a connexion, to do that immediate justice to which he is prompted by nature, and which no prudential motives are strong enough to restrain.

The party making the attack may be resisted, and if several persons join in such attack they may all be resisted, and one may be killed although he may not himself have given the immediate cause for such killing, if by his presence and his acts he has aided the assailant.

The cases for which a man may defend himself are of two kinds; first, when a felony is attempted, and secondly, when no felony is attempted or apprehended.

1st. A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.

2d. A man may defend himself when no felony has been threatened or attempted: 1. When the assailant attempts to beat another and there is no mutual combat, such as where one meets another and attempts to commit or does commit an assault and battery on him, the person attacked may defend himself, and; 2. An attempt to strike another, when sufficiently near so that that there is danger, the person assailed may strike first, and is not required to wait until he has been struck.

When there is a mutual combat upon a sudden quarrel both parties are the aggressors, and if in the fight one is killed it will be manslaughter at least, unless the survivor can prove two things: 1st. That before the mortal stroke was given be had refused any further combat, and had retreated as far as he could with safety; and 2d. That he killed his adversary from necessity, to avoid his own destruction.

A man may defend himself against animals, and he may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards.

As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy.

[dirtyrat]

Then it wouldn't be preemptive.

it would if i attack first....

allow me to be more specific, "... when all other options to de-escalate the situation fails."

this is where your ability to read people (ie. "listening skills ;))comes into play.

[Lee Chiang Po]

It must be hell being a victim. You know, the police can not protect you. Will not protect you, only do a who done it after you are assaulted. No amount of training is going to garantee you can defend yourself or your family. A martial art is just something that is designed to give you an edge. That is all it is, and even then if you are not quick and fierce you might not have an edge. If you are in a situation where violence might be the conclusion, you have to have the upper hand if you are to survive it. You can not worry about the law or the police because neither is there to defend you. If there is even a remote chance that you are going to have to fight, only a complete fool would let the guy know that you intend to do so. Once he realizes you are going to fight you will have lost the advantage of stealth. There is absolutely no way that you can know what is going down. You have to make it go down the way you want and not wait and let him set the pace.
The other option is to stay at home or only go where there are boy scouts and police to protect you. And quite wasting your time learning and training something you are scared to use.

[Robinhood]

If you have to try to hit first, you probably have a low skill level, keep practicing, until you feel you don't need to hurt them at all.

[PalmStriker]

But is it worth the risk? Unless you take hits to the face every day, one hit may be all it takes for some cat to finish you. Why give him that hit if you know it's comming. And you are wrong about the law. I have struck first and got off because I was just defending myself. U are allowed to hit people in certain threatening situations. Especially when intimidation and/or confinement is part of it. Like standing in a doorway, the only doorway, and promissing pain to the occupant, for example. It would not be out of line to run right through the guy.

I was charged for defending myself once aswell. We each had one punch. His didn't land flush and mine did. Dude fell back and ended up in the ER with staples. I was convicted for that one too. Doesn't seem fair does it. But then the law isn't about being fair, it's about order. Otherwise I would be able to do a ton of harmless activities that are at this time quite illegal for whatever reasons. Not talking about allowing someone to close in and place strikes.
The closing in, is first blood.

[Peaceful Orchid]

If you have to try to hit first, you probably have a low skill level, keep practicing, until you feel you don't need to hurt them at all.

This is very true.

[Peaceful Orchid]

It must be hell being a victim. You know, the police can not protect you. Will not protect you, only do a who done it after you are assaulted. No amount of training is going to garantee you can defend yourself or your family. A martial art is just something that is designed to give you an edge. That is all it is, and even then if you are not quick and fierce you might not have an edge. If you are in a situation where violence might be the conclusion, you have to have the upper hand if you are to survive it. You can not worry about the law or the police because neither is there to defend you. If there is even a remote chance that you are going to have to fight, only a complete fool would let the guy know that you intend to do so. Once he realizes you are going to fight you will have lost the advantage of stealth. There is absolutely no way that you can know what is going down. You have to make it go down the way you want and not wait and let him set the pace.
The other option is to stay at home or only go where there are boy scouts and police to protect you. And quite wasting your time learning and training something you are scared to use.

The other option is to be good enough that there is no threat from some weenie who is talking sh!t to you. If you're good enough, you don't have to worry about needing to hit first.

[I Hate Ashida Kim]

Greetings,

I saw a demo of this kind of approach done by Ronald Duncan. It is good stuff.

In terms of hitting first, elders have the right to hit first. They can't afford otherwise.

mickey

Ronald Duncan the koga ninja?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can say this, in ALL my years bouncing and in the military that I can count on one hand the times I have NEEDED to "pre-emptive" hit anyone.
And ALL of them involved the fact that the person DID something that warranted it.
EX:
While talking his hand disappears ( reaching for something).
He turns away one side of his body ( classic sucker punch on the way).
I see his attention go BEHIND me.
Etc.

[Fighting Eagle]

With street experience you can know if it's going to escalate to violence, but you can never know when. I believe striking first will put you in an extreme advantage to escape, succeed, win. However, even if striking first affords you victory, it may hurt you legally or financially and in that case it can be better to expect a fight but take the first hit yourself. As we all know, the first person to strike loses in a legal battle or when the cops arrive. The old question, "Who started it?" always comes up.

I've been in many street fights but once I became proficient at kung-fu, I've never thrown the first punch and still won or avoided every street\bar fight I've be involved in. It all has to do with experience. You can take the hit, roll the punch, block the strike, bob and weave, duck, step back and then take your opponent down. In the case of multiple attackers, striking first will give you a much needed head start to escape or continue your attack on another opponent.

All in all, it really depends on the situation. Striking first can give you a much needed advantage but the situation should be evaluated first. This can only be done with experience IMHO.

[Lee Chiang Po]

From the way you guys talk, I certainly hope you are as good as you say. I have been into court on many occasions, being sued, charged with assault, causing bodily injury. On the other hand I have been shot, more than once. Stabbed, more than once. Beat all to hell, more than once. Most of that was because I did not take the initiative. No one is so good that they can give an opponent a break. How many of you have even been in a situation where you could be harmed? My skills are solid. I am a bad man when I fight. Old, but I can still get down. I am a realist however, and I realize that nothing is garanteed. Even an untrained fighter can mess you up if he gets the chance. You can never take anyone for granted when it comes to an exchange of violence.

[Syn7]

Not talking about allowing someone to close in and place strikes.
The closing in, is first blood.

even if i have to cross the room coz i know he's coming for me eventually. not always a bad idea to just get it on while the odds are somewhat even rather than difusing the situation then getting jumped later. which may or may not happen anyways, but you may as well get in while you can and hopefully you can dead the issue right there. you have to be able to read people, sometimes talking it out is better, for sure. but the do not need to be physically aggressive in order to warrant an attack IMO. there are times when you just need to clean house and do it now.

[Syn7]

From the way you guys talk, I certainly hope you are as good as you say. I have been into court on many occasions, being sued, charged with assault, causing bodily injury. On the other hand I have been shot, more than once. Stabbed, more than once. Beat all to hell, more than once. Most of that was because I did not take the initiative. No one is so good that they can give an opponent a break. How many of you have even been in a situation where you could be harmed? My skills are solid. I am a bad man when I fight. Old, but I can still get down. I am a realist however, and I realize that nothing is garanteed. Even an untrained fighter can mess you up if he gets the chance. You can never take anyone for granted when it comes to an exchange of violence.

sounds like you needed a lifestyle change many moons ago.

defensive kung fu takes significantly more skill than offensive kung fu. that is true for all combat methods, but it especially holds true for kung fu.

[Yao Sing]

Hey, the U.S. military is ok with pre-emptive strikes. :D

[RenDaHai]

The way a lot of you talk on here, its like you expect all fights to be with some kind of homicidal predator, but in my experience there is a lot of violence from normal people. Normal people who've had a bad day, or are drunk, or are just d*ck heads. Although all violence is potentially life threatening, I think murderous intent is rarely present. I think often someone just wants to ruff you up a bit. Yeah you could die, but you could die doing a lot of things.

But I'm from England... I guess maybe America is more dangerous.

[mickey]

Greetings,

Yes, Ronald Duncan of the Koga ninja school.

Elders have the right to hit first.


mickey

[Syn7]

The way a lot of you talk on here, its like you expect all fights to be with some kind of homicidal predator, but in my experience there is a lot of violence from normal people. Normal people who've had a bad day, or are drunk, or are just d*ck heads. Although all violence is potentially life threatening, I think murderous intent is rarely present. I think often someone just wants to ruff you up a bit. Yeah you could die, but you could die doing a lot of things.

But I'm from England... I guess maybe America is more dangerous.

Yeah but you should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Hopefully people with deadly skills also have the intellect to know how far to go, or not go. It's usually pretty obvious. But unless you know that it will be a one on one fist fight you must assume a weapon and mutiple attackers are present until you can see otherwise. Know what I mean?

[Lee Chiang Po]

I was working as a bouncer once when this fellow kept trying to fight with me. He had seen me remove a fellow the week before and kept telling everyone, I wish that jap would try that stuff on me. I didn't mind except being called a jap. Anyway, he just kept on building up to it until he finally made a try. He tried to sucker punch me but I got him in a wrist lock that rolled him into an arm bar with it. No way that anyone gets loose from that one. Had my knee against the back of his neck and his butt up in the air. It was in front of his lady and friends so it didn't make him happy. I got him to agree to stop all hostilities and offered to buy him a cold beer. He agreed, but no sooner than I let him go he tried to sucker punch me again. I had to beat him down and ended up with him in the same wrist lock, arm bar. Two friends came over and was trying to get in behind me and I turned my back to a table where they could not do so. I told them that I was not going to fight all of them so I was going to break the guys arm and then to them. They kept on, being egged on by their ladies. I told them again and he even asked them to stand down. They didn't, so rather than turn him loose I snapped his wrist and kicked him across the room. The other 2 were not as tough as I had expected and when I popped the first one the second backed off. My boss was upset at me, thinking I really didn't have to do that, but I had no help and the end result would have been something I didn't even want to consider. I might have been able to whip all 3 of them. Who knows. But I had no idea about what any one of them could do or was capible of doing. I whipped 4 dudes in a pool hall once. I was rather scathed for the efforts too. You do what you need to do.

[David Jamieson]

cool story bro!

[Syn7]

I was working as a bouncer once when this fellow kept trying to fight with me. He had seen me remove a fellow the week before and kept telling everyone, I wish that jap would try that stuff on me. I didn't mind except being called a jap. Anyway, he just kept on building up to it until he finally made a try. He tried to sucker punch me but I got him in a wrist lock that rolled him into an arm bar with it. No way that anyone gets loose from that one. Had my knee against the back of his neck and his butt up in the air. It was in front of his lady and friends so it didn't make him happy. I got him to agree to stop all hostilities and offered to buy him a cold beer. He agreed, but no sooner than I let him go he tried to sucker punch me again. I had to beat him down and ended up with him in the same wrist lock, arm bar. Two friends came over and was trying to get in behind me and I turned my back to a table where they could not do so. I told them that I was not going to fight all of them so I was going to break the guys arm and then to them. They kept on, being egged on by their ladies. I told them again and he even asked them to stand down. They didn't, so rather than turn him loose I snapped his wrist and kicked him across the room. The other 2 were not as tough as I had expected and when I popped the first one the second backed off. My boss was upset at me, thinking I really didn't have to do that, but I had no help and the end result would have been something I didn't even want to consider. I might have been able to whip all 3 of them. Who knows. But I had no idea about what any one of them could do or was capible of doing. I whipped 4 dudes in a pool hall once. I was rather scathed for the efforts too. You do what you need to do.



I like that video clip from, i think, holland. the guy is acting up and the bouncer, a champion kickboxer, said "don't i know you? i trained your brother. should i talk to your brother?" and all the sudden the guy gets real nice and is like "no please dont tell me brother." sh1t was hillarious. I know it's posted on this site somewheres.

[Faruq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UMccyOHP6iE

I've never heard of this guy before. Does he have any qualifications?

[Yao Sing]

He must be good, there's a fight ring in the background. :D

[Dragonzbane76]

I was working as a bouncer once when this fellow kept trying to fight with me. He had seen me remove a fellow the week before and kept telling everyone, I wish that jap would try that stuff on me. I didn't mind except being called a jap. Anyway, he just kept on building up to it until he finally made a try. He tried to sucker punch me but I got him in a wrist lock that rolled him into an arm bar with it. No way that anyone gets loose from that one. Had my knee against the back of his neck and his butt up in the air. It was in front of his lady and friends so it didn't make him happy. I got him to agree to stop all hostilities and offered to buy him a cold beer. He agreed, but no sooner than I let him go he tried to sucker punch me again. I had to beat him down and ended up with him in the same wrist lock, arm bar. Two friends came over and was trying to get in behind me and I turned my back to a table where they could not do so. I told them that I was not going to fight all of them so I was going to break the guys arm and then to them. They kept on, being egged on by their ladies. I told them again and he even asked them to stand down. They didn't, so rather than turn him loose I snapped his wrist and kicked him across the room. The other 2 were not as tough as I had expected and when I popped the first one the second backed off. My boss was upset at me, thinking I really didn't have to do that, but I had no help and the end result would have been something I didn't even want to consider. I might have been able to whip all 3 of them. Who knows. But I had no idea about what any one of them could do or was capible of doing. I whipped 4 dudes in a pool hall once. I was rather scathed for the efforts too. You do what you need to do. __________________

after that was done did you kick him in the face and scream!!!!!!!

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50495_270814222831_4121_n.jpg