[QUOTE=Frost;1022388]no you would have peed yourself and begged him to not beat you up, lets be fair about this:)[/QUOTE]
The above sounds like a Freudian slip on your part,…
Look, the only people who are afraid of your hooligans are your own people. Most of these deliquents would not survive 10 seconds in the rough neighborhoods here in Colombia, nor in Brazil, or most parts South America.
People here don’t have the patience of standing and listening to some “half-man” moron who is acting tough…LOLde
However and again, I take off my hat to the other guy’s coolness and intelligence in acting within a law, that is designed to protect the criminals, while it is emasculating the population, in making them depend on police and authorities (who are never there on time) to handle such situations, thus creating a constant fear of “what if I do” and “what if I don’t”.
[QUOTE=Faruq;1022462]Couldn’t the attackee have attacked the attacker as soon as he entered his property? Was it really necessary to take all that on his own property?[/QUOTE]
well it’s the UK and they have all sorts of nanny laws that make victims criminals.
so the guy probably wanted to make absolutely sure he did not take the first swing and that everyone saw that because believe it or not, in england, the guy who knocked the other guy down, whilst on his own property can in fact be charged with assault.
It’s an aspect of the UK that makes it a giant ***** state.
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1022464]well it’s the UK and they have all sorts of nanny laws that make victims criminals.
so the guy probably wanted to make absolutely sure he did not take the first swing and that everyone saw that because believe it or not, in england, the guy who knocked the other guy down, whilst on his own property can in fact be charged with assault.
It’s an aspect of the UK that makes it a giant ***** state. :p[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Faruq;1022492]What’s the law here in the U.S.?[/QUOTE]
In many states, if someone comes on your property without permission, their ass is pretty much yours. In some cases, you are free to shoot them.
Not everywhere, but there is a lot more emphasis on the value of personal property in the US, whereas in the UK, not so much.
i’m not a lawyer, but over time you learn things and what I’ve learned is that the US can be wild west in some ways and the UK is in the throws of an Orwellian orgasm.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1022461]The above sounds like a Freudian slip on your part,…
Look, the only people who are afraid of your hooligans are your own people. Most of these deliquents would not survive 10 seconds in the rough neighborhoods here in Colombia, nor in Brazil, or most parts South America.
People here don’t have the patience of standing and listening to some “half-man” moron who is acting tough…LOLde
However and again, I take off my hat to the other guy’s coolness and intelligence in acting within a law, that is designed to protect the criminals, while it is emasculating the population, in making them depend on police and authorities (who are never there on time) to handle such situations, thus creating a constant fear of “what if I do” and “what if I don’t”.
Well, I hope you learned something new today…LOL[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Faruq;1022462]Couldn’t the attackee have attacked the attacker as soon as he entered his property? Was it really necessary to take all that on his own property?[/QUOTE]
If memory serves me correctly, the British law allows one to use “reasonable” force to get the person off your property.
Unfortunately, different judges will have different “interpretations” of “reasonable force”. Furthermore, their interpretation will depend on the politics of the day, that is, wether the country is passing through an artificially inspired do-gooder, “be nice to criminals”, phase, designed to further scare the public into depending on government for protection.
Even though the US gives its citizens (of course,depending on the individual State), once you are outside of your property, then your reaction to any attack has to be also considered reasonable. That is the tendency is the same in both countries - they give criminals as much protection as they can.
Now that the the veil is lifting and revealing the type of psychopathic mind-set and corrupt leaders who are in charge of both (and other “civilized” countries as well) one can further understand the obsession with protecting criminal scum that roam the streets…
Going back to the video clip…I hope that Sanjuro ronin can bring in some input as he has a lot of karate experience and may add some more valid points on the type of MA used in that fight.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1022369]The more I look at the video the more my opinion swings towards karate. It was one clean shot and no follow up. Of course, the no follow up may have been due to the guy’s kindness more than anything else.
I was judging by some things I learned in the 70’s. If you will notice, he was standing in a karate neutral stance most of the time he was being verbally assaulted.
His hands were fists, held in front of his lower abdomen. Go back and look and you will see. As a younger man I earned a large portion of my income as a bouncer, or as I liked to call it, social director. I learned to see and catch subtle things like that as it could sometimes save from being taken by surprise. From his actions I would say that he did only what was needed and we only seen a tiny bit of his actual potential. He was waiting for the other guy to take that swing.
I like the vid and thought it was funny but, did see problems with it also. If, that was real and not staged in any way, that guy has the restraint of Mahatma Gandhi!
He may know what he thinks he’s capable of but, that could have turned tragic easily. Any one of the head nudges could have been a head butt followed by hay makers and this video takes on another meaning.
