Post your 'You Tube' videos of interest.

[kurogane]

Proportionality - as simple as that.

That's not really a simple concept in legal terms.

Sadly, as your eloquent tale below shows its a downright simplistic one. That is actually a hidden danger with WS's thoroughly decent deconstruction of the comedian's response, in MYflyingHOMO.

In the eyes of the law in Japan my response was not proportional. I even spoke with a lawyer friend after that and she told me that I probably would have lost in court and that all I had the right to do was push him back and rip his shirt. In Japan if you escalate the violence you're in the wrong. .

In the only instance the cops attended I was also told by the patrolman that I was on serious thin ice, but the instigation was that the guy whose face needed 13 stitches had punched a friend in the back of her head as she walked past him on the street late at night, and there were at least 30 eyewitnesses that agreed that started it and that I had demanded he apologise and only punched him out when he refused. All his sympathetic witnesses were his gang that had also jumped in on the brawl after it got heated and not even the racist patrol sergeant was buying what they were selling. The Colombo that attended wrapped it up when the sergeant kept insisting I needed to be arrested because I had punched a Japanese but wasn't so blessed myself. He was visibly disappointed and even somewhat derisive when I refused to pony up the 30.000 for the hospital bill that Japanese Jimmy Jo was so obviously going to need, but I pointed out that the best way to prevent these sorts of incidents was to strike the fear of the avenging wrath of the Archangel Michael into the scum that start that sort of crap. Which brings us back to:

Sometimes you have to escalate the violence to neutralize a threat.

and sometimes you have to drop an A-Bomb to teach a lesson.

They never ever spoke to me or addressed me in any way after that though being a small city I think they knew it was me when I passed by their usual curbside squat spot.

[Wage Slave]

Proportionality - as simple as that.

That's not really a simple concept in legal terms.

Sadly, as your eloquent tale below shows its a downright simplistic one. That is actually a hidden danger with WS's thoroughly decent deconstruction of the comedian's response, in MYflyingHOMO.

You can say exactly the same things about words like reasonable, intention, minimum and necessary. In UK law we go further and say only minimum necessary force is allowed for self deference. The reason we have something called juries is to decide on a case by case basis whether the actions of a defendant meet these criteria. And that's how it works in English Law and systems derived from it. If you are going to dismiss the concept of proportionality on that basis you will have to propose an entirely new system. I hear the French have a good contender.

[kurogane]

In UK law we go further and say only minimum necessary force is allowed for self deference. .

As it should be. Especially in the US the problems with self-deference are widespread enough as it is. ba dum bum

JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyways, yes to that general argument but I disagree the comedian's response was disproportional or -ate and that the real problem here is retards like Ray. He was advancing at speed with hands up and is said to be known to be a loose lugnut. Certainly after my 5 at One Blow fight in Kanazawa I would run away but I wouldn't judge harshly a similar response to the one seen here. Bullies need to be beaten not backed.

It could seem we are watching 2 different videos. Do you have sympathy for the goof or are you simply arguing to take the higher road?

[Coligny]

Sidenote... I still think the high pressure co2 fire extinguishers are the best weapons for street fights...
If the fight is still going on when you run out of fire repellant you still have the can to swing around...
(Only have the powder version in the car, not trusting high pressure anything inside a car in tropical climates)

[Takechanpoo]

[Samurai_Jerk]

[Coligny]

I think i would actually enjoy this kind of theme park. Need moar h00man suffering maybe...

Moar:

http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/08/dismaland/

[matsuki]

Proportionality - as simple as that.

That's not really a simple concept in legal terms. When I was assaulted here I was alone and a guy on the street with several friend started yelling at me for no reason, he kept grabbing me when I tried to get away, and then he pushed me and ripped my shirt when I got verbally aggressive. So I elbowed him in the face which dropped him instantly. In the end the cops let me off because he finally admitted he started it and said he didn't want to press charges. If he had though I probably would have been in trouble because he had physical damaged to his face and I had a ripped shirt. In the eyes of the law in Japan my response was not proportional. I even spoke with a lawyer friend after that and she told me that I probably would have lost in court and that all I had the right to do was push him back and rip his shirt. In Japan if you escalate the violence you're in the wrong. That's how the oyaji gari scams work (Worked? Is that still a thing?). That is ridiculous. Sometimes you have to escalate the violence to neutralize a threat.

This is the major problem I have with the Japanese concept of "self defense" where any violence on your part is no longer "defense." You can side step an aggressor initially....fine....but when is that ever the end of an attack? Whether it's you, a bystander, etc, there is going to be some physical defense involved in the defense. Doesn't need to be shoot em up or beat em with a pipe level overreaction....but if you're being charged by someone intent on injuring you, a swift kick to the aggressor"s obviously blue balls doesn't seem to unreasonable. You can even put it into Japanese "loophole" mentality by saying he ran his balls into your foot.

[Wage Slave]

Proportionality - as simple as that.

That's not really a simple concept in legal terms. When I was assaulted here I was alone and a guy on the street with several friend started yelling at me for no reason, he kept grabbing me when I tried to get away, and then he pushed me and ripped my shirt when I got verbally aggressive. So I elbowed him in the face which dropped him instantly. In the end the cops let me off because he finally admitted he started it and said he didn't want to press charges. If he had though I probably would have been in trouble because he had physical damaged to his face and I had a ripped shirt. In the eyes of the law in Japan my response was not proportional. I even spoke with a lawyer friend after that and she told me that I probably would have lost in court and that all I had the right to do was push him back and rip his shirt. In Japan if you escalate the violence you're in the wrong. That's how the oyaji gari scams work (Worked? Is that still a thing?). That is ridiculous. Sometimes you have to escalate the violence to neutralize a threat.

This is the major problem I have with the Japanese concept of "self defense" where any violence on your part is no longer "defense." You can side step an aggressor initially....fine....but when is that ever the end of an attack? Whether it's you, a bystander, etc, there is going to be some physical defense involved in the defense. Doesn't need to be shoot em up or beat em with a pipe level overreaction....but if you're being charged by someone intent on injuring you, a swift kick to the aggressor"s obviously blue balls doesn't seem to unreasonable. You can even put it into Japanese "loophole" mentality by saying he ran his balls into your foot.

For the record. If I were on a jury in SJ's case, if it had come to court, then I would have found him not guilty of assault by reason of minimum necessary force to defend himself. I think it is a bit close to the borderline for comfort but given the location, time, circumstances, number of protagonists, fact of actual physical assault and so on there was a real threat and so his one off use of sharp force was justified. Presumably the police thought the same because if they hadn't they would have sent a report saying so to the prosecutor. It was a bit close to the line but he shouldn't have faced charges I agree.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Presumably the police thought the same because if they hadn't they would have sent a report saying so to the prosecutor.

I'm not sure about that. I think I got off because the guy didn't want to press charges. It's possible the cops pushed him to drop it since they knew he started it but I'm almost positive that if he'd stuck to his guns, I would have been fucked.

[matsuki]

I think you're probably right...which is ridicules unless you go far beyond what is necessary in the situation. It's not like you knocked him down and then went on the attack and started kicking him.

Anyone know the origin of defenseless self defense mentality?

[Samurai_Jerk]

[Wage Slave]

Anyone know the origin of defenseless proportionate self defense mentality?

English common law and the emergence of a more civilised world.

[wagyl]

Since the law in the US is stated similarly,

[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.

I think we can presume that the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus has diverged from the view of the dude in his Camaro on the 405.

Or otherwise the posters here are posting their opinions with a chaser of bravado.

[matsuki]

Anyone know the origin of defenseless proportionate self defense mentality?

English common law and the emergence of a more civilised world.

I totally agree with limiting ones defense to "the minimum force required" but I think you're view of the Japanese idea of "self defense" is a little amai. Whether in the act of defense or not, any injury to the aggressor tends to lead to charges if they pursue them.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Since the law in the US is stated similarly,

[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.

I think we can presume that the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus has diverged from the view of the dude in his Camaro on the 405.

Or otherwise the posters here are posting their opinions with a chaser of bravado.

Right but the question is what's reasonable? The US has gone too far in one one direction with some states allowing you to shoot people for accidentally jostling the wrong door knob in the middle of the night. However the Japanese idea of only allowing a tit-for-tat response is ridiculous. Ridiculous to the point that jack-off chimpira can use it to extort money from people. Sometimes you have to hit first and hard. If I wait for the aggressive guy making a move towards me to throw a punch, I might end up out cold on the floor with my teeth knocked out. Assuming the younger bigger guy has the advantage is also ridiculous. My buddy is a retired champion pro boxer who won most of his fights by knockout. He was also a feather weight. I'm sure that if he were to square off with a 23 year old 100 kg bodybuilder who's never thrown a punch in his life most people would assuming the little older guy was in trouble. How wrong they'd be.

Anyone know the origin of defenseless proportionate self defense mentality?

English common law and the emergence of a more civilised world.

I totally agree with limiting ones defense to "the minimum force required" but I think you're view of the Japanese idea of "self defense" is a little amai. Whether in the act of defense or not, any injury to the aggressor tends to lead to charges if they pursue them.

Exactamundo.

[Wage Slave]

I think we can presume that the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus has diverged from the view of the dude in his Camaro on the 405.

And some .

Also amusing that the same folks are outraged when the police in America use exactly the same argument to justify putting half a dozen bullets into someone because they felt a little apprehensive.

[matsuki]

Since the law in the US is stated similarly,

[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.

I think we can presume that the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus has diverged from the view of the dude in his Camaro on the 405.

Or otherwise the posters here are posting their opinions with a chaser of bravado.

Right but the question is what's reasonable? The US has gone too far in one one direction with some states allowing you to shoot people for accidentally jostling the wrong door knob in the middle of the night. However the Japanese idea of only allowing a tit-for-tat response is ridiculous. Ridiculous to the point that jack-off chimpira can use it to extort money from people. Sometimes you have to hit first and hard. If I wait for the aggressive guy making a move towards me to throw a punch, I might end up out cold on the floor with my teeth knocked out. Assuming the younger bigger guy has the advantage is also ridiculous. My buddy is a retired champion pro boxer who won most of his fights by knockout. He was also a feather weight. I'm sure that if he were to square off with a 23 year old 100 kg bodybuilder who's never thrown a punch in his life most people would assuming the little older guy was in trouble. How wrong they'd be.

As much as I have to admit I enjoy watching some aggressive asshole get some well deserved beat down....there is a difference between giving the dude an extra shot or two...and going bloodthirsty revenge and putting the dude in the hospital. (or shooting, stabbing, etc.them)

The whole "how it looks on paper" aspect to crimes is such a bullshit excuse for J-cops to pursue or refuse to pursue anything. The bitch that wrecked my apartment and stole my old keitai...the cops totally refused to take any action because "nothing of great value has been destroyed and she can return the phone." If the tables had been turned, I would have been locked up that night because "they have to take every crime against women reported seriously."

[kurogane]

Since the law in the US is stated similarly,

[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another.

I think we can presume that the view of the man on the Clapham Omnibus has diverged from the view of the dude in his Camaro on the 405. Or otherwise the posters here are posting their opinions with a chaser of bravado.

To my mind that clears the comedian according to the Wage Slave Test: he only struck once and it wasn't heinous or deadly, and the threat was easily defined as apparent and immediate.

I'll have 2 bravados and a dose of self-satisfaction, please.

[wagyl]

a dose of self-satisfaction, please.

Sir, I think you have already had more than enough this evening...

[Samurai_Jerk]

Also amusing that the same folks are outraged when the police in America use exactly the same argument to justify putting half a dozen bullets into someone because they felt a little apprehensive.

I was waiting for one of you pantywaists to bring that up. Apples and oranges.

Let's make the police brutality problem simple for you to understand though.

Justified shooting of an unarmed man.

Unjustified shooting of an unarmed man.

[Coligny]

Holy shit I'm bored...

(too hot to move yet not enough to pass out...)

[Wage Slave]

And now could we see an example of a shooting somewhere in the middle of those two extremes? An applange or something.

And that's the point - The use of extreme and even lethal force can or course be justified in a certain cases. Obviously. However, in a civilised society, to safeguard all of us from thickos and violent bastards the get out of claiming self defense needs to be constrained pretty tightly and clearly. A lot of pretty dangerous people have a need for things to spelled out very clearly to them. Deploy significant force and the onus will be on you to justify it.

Good law is often about how the marginal cases are dealt with rather than the clear cut ones.

[Coligny]

Better late than never, F4U corsair training video.

Almost as horrific as you can expect...

[Russell]

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?

[wuchan]

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?

Legally, the looser. The winner of a fight pays the looser. (research the samurai hot water bucket way of settling personal disputes)

in reality, the j-cops would say it's too difficult and walk away.

[matsuki]

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?

Legally, the looser. The winner of a fight pays the looser. (research the samurai hot water bucket way of settling personal disputes)

in reality, the j-cops would say it's too difficult and walk away.

There would no doubt be much teeth sucking and belittling the guy who had his ass handed to him by a female. I too think this would be one they walked away from UNLESS either party was really adamant about pressing charges.

[Samurai_Jerk]

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.

[Coligny]

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.

Which ones ?
She always end up naked and raped by the tentacle monsters in the one I saw...

[Russell]

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?