how much force should you use

[Lucas]

along the lines of misdirection, appearing meek or cowardly (fracturing or staggering your troops) to appear less of a threat has its uses. Then so does standing tall, looking fierce (extra campfires, drummers, and keeping an empty ness in the center of troop formations to appear a larger force) and seemingly unafraid and welcoming confrontation has its uses as well. all the varying tactics will have a time and place.

awareness and possessing the mental faculties to assess and adress the varying circumstances and contributing factors is, IMO, one of the most important elements in being able to determine what route you want to take in defending, evading or avoiding possible confrontations.

with that said, from my point of view, sometimes its a good idea to let someone know what they are getting themselves into, some people just have no clue, and when they realize you're gonna put out your A game, they may have a change of intentions. other times, its good to let someone over zealous to assume you are a weak pushover. alot of that is being able to discerne personality type and intent as well though.

ugh had to go on lunch and lost my train of thought....

[uki]

As for yelling at someone that you practice martial arts...not a good idea

i only said this was what a teacher once told me...

[LSWCTN1]

i know many people of the mindset that if you F with them, then you take on board all that they have to offer. Mnay of these people are not agressors, but will not back down.

in the uk we have a nice law where we can act first in we are in fear of our safety.

also, reasonable force is relative. if someone threatens you with a gun theoretically you can take their life in defence. i know things are a little different in America but in the UK if you did you would at least be looking at a manslaughter charge.

one of the points that Uki raised is actually very valid. if someone attacks you either unprovoked or on perceived provocation then they are potentially endangering your life. why shouldnt reasonable force cover unintentional death? in theory?

personally if someone strikes me and i then strike them back we are entering into a mutually agreed arrangement. if one of us walks away or admits defeat and is still attacked - that is assault.

however, almost all (IME) encounters involve alcohol. what usually happens is one person gets hit and then his friends/the doorstaff get involved and break it up. the other party then walks outside to carry one what the first party (who has now left) started. if someone says something along the lines of '1 on 1' then could that not be constituted as a verbal contract, or at least an agreement therefore negating any assault carge? (dont think verbal contracts are legal in the UK? maybe they are in the US though?)

just some thoughts

[Lucas]

its a good point, the only thing is that dueling was outlawed in the states some time ago, so the 1v1 contractual agreement is void due to the law.



I know, its sad....

[uki]

i know many people of the mindset that if you F with them, then you take on board all that they have to offer. Many of these people are not agressors, but will not back down.

another aspect of the tiger energy... if you are minding your own buisness and someone physically attacks you, there should be no fear of consequence in what may happen in self-defense - you can only cross one bridge at a time and if you are worried about crossing the second bridge while crossing the first bridge, you might not be aware of the holes in the planks.

[YouKnowWho]

Whether you should knock your opponent down or just push him away depends on who you are dealing with. Sometime your "push" may scare your opponent to death (I do wish this can be true in the real world), sometime you just invite him to come back at you again.

[uki]

Whether you should knock your opponent down or just push him away depends on who you are dealing with.

it also depends on if some people will be pushed away or knocked down...