Actually, I think the law would be in support - providing that you use reasonable force in self defence.Originally Posted by Hot Rodimus
Remember that the law defines assault as "to cause another to apprehend (perceive) immediate harmful contact." Someone does not need to touch you in order to assault you - once they do make contact, then that's battery (thus once you're attacked you're a victim of assault and battery). So if someone gives you the honest perception that they're going to harm you, then they are assaulting you, and you are allowed to defend yourself using a reasonable amount of force.
"A conditional threat, such as 'Don't move or I'll kill you' is still an assault. This is even though, technically, if the victim does not move they will not be killed and have nothing to fear. This is because the basis of the offence is the creation of fear, and someone will always be scared with a knife in their back." (M. Parker, B. Derwent, "Justice, Law & Society 1", Longman Cheshire, 1991)
So there's no need for people to necessarily assume that they're powerless to defend themselves if a potential attacker is merely making threats. Threats can be verbal and non-verbal. For example, adopting a fighting stance (e.g. raising your fists in an aggressive and hostile manner) is a non-verbal way of threatening someone - and thus could be argued to be assault and you would use this as your justification to enact self defence. If a person raises a fist as if they're going to punch you, then it would not be unreasonable for you to punch them first. You don't have to wait for the punch to being as the threat has already been established (and thus you are _already_ under assault). Meeting the threat of a punch with a punch should be perceived as a reasonable amount of force in self defence. The law states "reasonable" force, but most people go by the rule of using "equal or lesser force" compared to the attacker.
Waiting for someone to throw a hit before defending yourself isn't necessary and it can be dangerous - cos after all a single good king hit can be fatal (e.g. David Hookes).
It's really good that you guys are being taught martial arts from a strictly defensive perspective, but to be frankly honest we have to admit that the martial arts were originally designed to hurt, maime and even kill people. They're not called "defensive arts," but martial arts and the word "martial" means "inclined or disposed to war" -- to practice the martial arts is to practice the art of war itself.
I completely agree with learning it as a means of self defence, but at the same time I also acknowledge that most of these techniques were designed for warfare. But that's okay - because it helps to understand how brutal attacks work in order to learn how to adequately defend yourself from them. It doesn't mean you have to or want to use them yourself, but it helps to learn how to defend yourself against them. For example, I can't imagine myself breaking someone's arm, leg, neck or spine (unless they threatened me with lethal force, but even then it wouldn't be my preferred option) - but it doesn't mean I don't learn to defend myself against such brutal attacks.
One thing that I see some martial arts school do - and the school I've recently started training in is guilty of this too - is practice against attacks that are too "gentle" or "kind" (as 5FDP also discussed before, the problem of over-compliant partners in training). It doesn't mean that you should go ape on your training partner, but at the same time I think it's a disservice to let them continue training with the belief that they're successfully countering your attacks when you can see various massive flaws in their technique. e.g. If a throw a punch and a person steps across me while blocking it with their groin exposed, I'm not going to kick them in the nads, but I'll tell them that they're groin is exposed and maybe lift my leg to do a half kick just to illustrate my point, but not make any actual contact.
Reply With Quote