Hot Topics | |
---|---|
Russell wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:Russell wrote:So if a woman trained in martial arts is attacked by a guy and she totally beats the crap out of him, how will she be treated according to Japanese law?
That only happens in the movies.
You mean like in this movie?
Coligny wrote:You know what... You just proved a point...
That you can effectively use the minimum amount of force needed to defeat an attacker.
If you are trained in combat, know your strenght and can judge the capacities of your opponents.
In my case... That would have been,
do nothing
Or
go to the car (only possible because a third party was the target), run over the guy twice. Prepare an explanation for my mechanic.
When your level of strenght is sumed up by "was once beaten by a real doll" you go for force multiplier. Then the whole measured response thing goes out of the window. You can't ask population to use reasonable force against an aggression when they are not trained or willing to fight. Threat and disruption... Run... If not possible... Then kill...
That's the drawback of civilization when a member don't play by the rules but you are still supposed to follow them...
Wage Slave wrote:Yeah but the guy in the earlier video had martial arts training and his 'attacker' looked about as credible as a wet blanket. It was more like those guys who pissed on a hobo, the hobo probably made some weak attack in response so the two of went to town on him with a pipe claiming self defence.
matsuki wrote:
The aggressor doesn't become a victim unless the original victim uses more force than is necessary...maybe cuts off his penis or something. Unless it gets to that point, the aggressor owns all the blame for choosing when and where to get violent.
Wage Slave wrote:matsuki wrote:
The aggressor doesn't become a victim unless the original victim uses more force than is necessary...maybe cuts off his penis or something. Unless it gets to that point, the aggressor owns all the blame for choosing when and where to get violent.
Is that the law in California?
Wage Slave wrote:Good example and that was self defence. No jury would convict her. Compare and contrast the situation, her intentions, the level of threat and the kick with the earlier video. Can you honestly not see the difference?
kurogane wrote:she definitely walked into the middle of that, which could be construed as intent.
Wage Slave wrote:Russell wrote:Samurai_Jerk wrote:Russell wrote:So if a woman trained in martial arts is attacked by a guy and she totally beats the crap out of him, how will she be treated according to Japanese law?
That only happens in the movies.
You mean like in this movie?
Good example and that was self defence. No jury would convict her. Compare and contrast the situation, her intentions, the level of threat and the kick with the earlier video. Can you honestly not see the difference?
Coligny wrote:Kuro, :
Duty to rescue..............
Samurai_Jerk wrote:In Japan if a guy stepped in and did the same thing he'd most likely be in trouble.
Wage Slave wrote:In the end, this is why certain countries have a jury system. You present all the known facts and evidence to a jury and they, and only they, decide whether the the force was reasonable in the circumstances. If I were on a jury, I would say that comedian went too far and endangered life without justification.
Sounds like I would be outvoted in California - And that's OK. Communities have the right to decide what standards they wish to live under. Personally though, I wouldn't want to live in a society that gave violent people the latitude to demonstrate their prowess without strict and well publicized limits being placed on them.
And as for laws like that one in Florida ........
matsuki wrote:Wage Slave wrote:In the end, this is why certain countries have a jury system. You present all the known facts and evidence to a jury and they, and only they, decide whether the the force was reasonable in the circumstances. If I were on a jury, I would say that comedian went too far and endangered life without justification.
Sounds like I would be outvoted in California - And that's OK. Communities have the right to decide what standards they wish to live under. Personally though, I wouldn't want to live in a society that gave violent people the latitude to demonstrate their prowess without strict and well publicized limits being placed on them.
And as for laws like that one in Florida ........
You do realize Japan's "trial by jury" is nothing like that?
matsuki wrote:You do realize Japan's "trial by jury" is nothing like that?
matsuki wrote:Both of those kicks looked powerful...and both ended with the aggressor on the ground and the victims leaving without further violence. The dude in the wrong got his in both vids.
WS, when shit like that happens, it's fast and the last thing you're thinking about is measuring the amount of force in your kick, based on the aggressor. If the old heckler was as frail as you're describing, I doubt he would have put up much of a struggle initially or charge like that at the comedian.
Russell wrote:In my opinion there is an important point not mentioned in the discussion and that is that the comedian did everything to escalate the situation.
After the heckler backed down for the first time, it would have been wise to carefully choose one's words. The reason the heckler came in for a second time was purely because he was provoked verbally.
A heckler is a person who harasses and tries to disconcert others with questions, challenges, or gibes. Hecklers are often known to shout disparaging comments at a performance or event, or to interrupt set-piece speeches, with the intent of disturbing performers and/or participants.
Wage Slave wrote:matsuki wrote:Wage Slave wrote:In the end, this is why certain countries have a jury system. You present all the known facts and evidence to a jury and they, and only they, decide whether the the force was reasonable in the circumstances. If I were on a jury, I would say that comedian went too far and endangered life without justification.
Sounds like I would be outvoted in California - And that's OK. Communities have the right to decide what standards they wish to live under. Personally though, I wouldn't want to live in a society that gave violent people the latitude to demonstrate their prowess without strict and well publicized limits being placed on them.
And as for laws like that one in Florida ........
You do realize Japan's "trial by jury" is nothing like that?
Yes, although I am hazy on the details. Do tell.
The country’s first modern code of criminal procedure was prepared by a French legal scholar hired by the Meiji government (1868-1912). His draft assumed a jury would play a role in serious criminal trials. Japanese leaders, however, feared a system empowering citizens to override the law (the ultimate power of juries) might lead to greater social disorder — even revolution. A jury-free code was enacted instead
Japanese leaders, however, feared a system empowering citizens to override the law (the ultimate power of juries) might lead to greater social disorder — even revolution. A jury-free code was enacted instead
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests