youtube in da hood

tallaght01

The first involves a martial artist taking on a pimp who attacks him. The second is a guy who looks like a boxer dealing with 2 guys who attack his bird.

Just thought I'd share them with you guys, if you haven't seen them.....

westcoastshuri

First one is class , thanks for posting them

Dar

pearsquasher

Well.....I've seen these a long time ago and always thought they were glorified episodes of thuggery.

The first vid looks like excessive force used on an already inhebriated individual who could have badly gotten injured when he hit the ground. How much of a threat was he to both the woman who also seemed inhebriated and to the guy who took him down? He also had another friend who was trying to stop him. Sure it may have been a nice technical clean strike if you isolated it from the context but in reality and outside the gym/dojo... context is all there is.

Second vid looks like a couple of guys who look inhebriated too, got a few slaps but managed to get themselves together to futher confront the guy walking with the woman.... How do we know that they didn't escalate things further in a more coordinated way behind the bushes? .....With weapons this time? Shouldn't the guy have avoided two dodgy looking fellas on the path in the first place? Wasn't one of the guys trying not to engage with the striker at all?

So I see two vids of

1) Physical striking on the part of someone against drunk/drugged "assailants" ... and....

2) Very poor use of awareness on the part of the same guys.



So.... bad self-defence in situations where many non-physical strategies could have occured. I don't think those videos are good ads for either Self Defence or Martial Arts. Sure.... you can argue that the strikes were technically good..... but............big deal.....

How would this sort of behaviour appear on cctv in an Irish court if any of the struck people got seriously injured and took it that far? There has been a recent example in the Irish news of a guy dying from been hit in a bar.

What do the situations tell you about situational awareness and soft-skills (the non-hitting part)?

Sports don't deal with context...just technical skill.. Martial arts should have context completely bound up in the teachings. Above may be 2 examples of what happens when you use one to fit into the other... in my opinion.

tallaght01

In the first video the guy pimp attacked the martial arts guy after he'd tried to stop him beating the prostitute. He was going to attack him. I guess the gu had the option to just stand there and take a kicking, but most people wouldn't take that option if they didn't have to.

In the second video two scumbags hit the bloke's bird square in the face. You can excuse it if you like by saying they were drunk, but a lot of people have watched those videos, and a LOT of people loved seeing them take a kicking. me included, and I hate violence.

ginoginelli

Yea seen those, oldies but goldies. I guess you could make a case for them both being a bit excessive, but in fairness the pimp was acting very aggressive and could easily be about to produce a weapon and for the second guy, i suppose he could have just kept walking but as Kenny Rogers sang "Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man".

Here's another oldie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2DirtL7JBg

pearsquasher

Well no matter how "good" or "successful" your street-fights are on youtube
- and I rarely see any that don't involve drink and/or essentially school yard fisticuffs - I'd expect all of my students to fully appreciate how disgusting and nasty ANY form of violence is.

Sure we train to disable an agressor but it's ALWAYS last resort and if one get's into an unavoidable altercation one would certainly have to step to the mark. BUT all of those videos should be thouroghly analysed with the viewpoint of HOW did the situation come about. HOW avoidable was it? Is your own attitdude tempered by where you live, your social history, movies, your weekly martial arts class? Why are you excited about the bad guy getting his head kicked in? Is this healthy?

Technically speaking it's easy to hit someone but what does it mean to really hit them with appropriate "violence" - and yes that what it is even if it's necessary? How will you feel when you've knocked out that drunken fool and you're sitting in the garda station and trying to tell yourself that even if they're badly injured you were in the right? Are you going to be wondering if you took it too far over your scratched bumper? Will you seek solice in your peers hoping to get a pat on the back?

Think about how you glorify on-screen violence be it "real" or not. Temper your training with a sense of social consequences.

Andrew H

We all know the best martial art technique is the art of not fighting "memory of old Bruce Lee film were he leaves guy in small rowing boat instead of fighting him on an island as challenged".

But regardless there are times when physical violence is necccesary to defend youself, your family or friends and at the end of the day it doesent matter where your from or your background. The art you study should give you the confidence to deal with these situations and the answer may not always be violence but if it happens it happens.

At what stage would you have struck the pimp, whats the pimps background regarding physical violence - he obvioulsy uses it to control his girls, does he have previous records of assaulting members of the public, is he armed... imo Karate guy done well and did not follow up on his attack he just done enough to put an end to the situation.

Andrew

pearsquasher

It's very interesting how we all watch the same piece of video with totally different perceptions.

However, the law is there to protect us from ANY violence and it does not (well, ideally anyway) have the same fluid responses to the same evidence as us lot.

Pre-emptive striking may be the best thing to do in some circumstances but you better have the capacity to weight up these things in the split second you'd need to to save yourself grief in the Courts.

In my opinion none of the video above show "appropriate" levels of reaction to the inital levels of aggression.... even if they are technically "good" examples of striking... that would score you points in match. The same strikes
outside the ring can have disastrous consequences.

Why not watch all 3 video again and, intead of being amazed and in awe of the way soemone "got their ass handed to them".. pinpoint exactly how the situation could have been dealt with without violence.


Not very exciting is it?

Not exactly impossible either though.

Judges don't care how excited you are about precieved self-defence skills. They're more interested in whether you did what was possible to prevent harm.

................as modern martial artists should be.

Andrew H

I've watched all three videos and in the second video the boxer could have avoided the situation by simply crossing the street so point taken.

I've no idea how the third incident kicked off, it looks like some kind of car accident but its hard to walk away from 3 guys swinging punches at your head.

In the third video a room full of police men seemed to think the one strike delivered by the Karate practioner was waranted and appropriate for the situation as do I.

pearsquasher wrote: »

Judges don't care how excited you are about precieved self-defence skills. They're more interested in whether you did what was possible to prevent harm.

................as modern martial artists should be.

and this is why people walk past altercations on the street and don't get involved. But it leaves the debate open for when an individual should get involved?

tallaght01

I have zero idea how any of those situations could have been avoided in all practicality. It didn't look like that pimp was going to stop without being stopped.
Those guys attacked the boxer's girlfriend in a park, so I'm not sure how easy it was to escape. They weren't obviously about to attack her when they were walking past. They were just 2 dunken guys on a pathway.

In the third video, there was no escaping, full stop lol.

You can eulogise about it all you like. I work in A+E. It's 4am. I was supposed to finish at midnight on the stroke of new years tonight. But I've just left now because it was so busy. A lot of that extra work was related to violence.

I abhor violence, and I'm well aware of the consequences.

But I still have to admit those videos gave me a chuckle :P

ginoginelli

Im the same as yourself Tallaght01, I absolutely hate violence. Unless its sanctioned (eg mma, boxing etc) but I do feel a certain satisfaction when I see a scumbag get his comeupins.

Here's another prime example of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzm1uX6poE4&feature=related

Id be interested to hear what some of the "holier than thou" posters think of this one..:D

pearsquasher

On the last vid there.....

What if the "scumbag" just saw his sister get raped?.... becomes vigilante and then gets knocked out? See... your perception of justice would change wouldn't it? Yes there's infinite "what-ifs" but they do all exist before violence so one case working out well doesn't mean there aren't other cases that don't go well. The point is that we don't know beforehand.

I'm not saying stopping an aggressor without violence is easy, or that relying on the police/courts is 100% effective.... but I think that as martial artists we should have that as our goal....... and I'm just not seeing enough people say that over their excitement at seeing perceived violent justice.

I think we MUST teach violent counter-violence as a LAST RESORT. Not one of the 4 videos above show last resort violence if you really think about
it... and the judicial system of civilised societies takes this view too and whether you like it or not that could be a factor in how the rest of your life goes should you NOT go the last resort route.

It's hugeley emotive and difficult but worth thinking about in the long run.

ginoginelli

pearsquasher wrote: »

On the last vid there.....

What if the "scumbag" just saw his sister get raped?.... becomes vigilante and then gets knocked out? See... your perception of justice would change wouldn't it? Yes there's infinite "what-ifs" but they do all exist before violence so one case working out well doesn't mean there aren't other cases that don't go well. The point is that we don't know beforehand.

I'm not saying stopping an aggressor without violence is easy, or that relying on the police/courts is 100% effective.... but I think that as martial artists we should have that as our goal....... and I'm just not seeing enough people say that over their excitement at seeing perceived violent justice.

I think we MUST teach violent counter-violence as a LAST RESORT. Not one of the 4 videos above show last resort violence if you really think about
it... and the judicial system of civilised societies takes this view too and whether you like it or not that could be a factor in how the rest of your life goes should you NOT go the last resort route.

It's hugeley emotive and difficult but worth thinking about in the long run.

I think its more likely the perpetrator in this video is some nutter gone off the rails, he's hittin the girls and passerbys for christ sake. What if?
What if my uncle had a fanny he'd be my auntie.. :eek:

Pacifism in my eyes is inherently morally bankrupt. I have real difficulty accepting that it is more acceptable to walk away from someone who injures an innocent loved one than to stand up yourself and the things you value. I've been brainwashed to not get in fights and to always walk away but I think that this attitude is contributing to a total decline in society.

Charlie3dan

columok wrote: »

Pacifism in my eyes is inherently morally bankrupt. .

I'd be interested to hear why you think this?

columok wrote: »

I have real difficulty accepting that it is more acceptable to walk away from someone who injures an innocent loved one than to stand up yourself and the things you value. .

That's fair enough but it all depends on the reality of the situation. Every situation is different. Is it an unprovoked attack? Is there a real intent to harm? In the example above-has the injury already taken place? Are you chasing this guy down the street for revenge while your loved one lies there bleeding? To what end?
It all depends

columok wrote: »

I've been brainwashed to not get in fights and to always walk away but I think that this attitude is contributing to a total decline in society.

I'd rather have everyone brainwashed to walk away from fights than to have everyone brainwashed to engage in violence as they choose.

First of all I should be clear that I'm not entirely sure of my opinions on all this. And some of this is my way of trying to work through my feelings on vigilantism etc.

I'd be interested to hear why you think this?

Pacifism by definition implies that one should avoid violence, fighting etc. This is inherently morally dubious as violence can be as appropriate and socially minded as the lack of violence. In the natural world the fear of violent reprisal from other animals acts to maintain harmony within a social group. I'm unlikely to spit at, shout at or happyslap a lion as said lion will happily bite lumps out of me. This certainly isn't true of human society. This fear (self preservation) instinct to not go treating others badly is important and natural in my eyes and has been eroded by litigation culture.
In my eyes pacifism by default (like Irish neutrality in WW2) is spineless.

That's fair enough but it all depends on the reality of the situation. Every situation is different. Is it an unprovoked attack? Is there a real intent to harm? In the example above-has the injury already taken place? Are you chasing this guy down the street for revenge while your loved one lies there bleeding? To what end?
It all depends

I would never advocate unprovoked violence. However (and again I'm not sure how I feel about this) I would question whether in respect to one's house, family or property someone shouldn't be within their rights to assertively defend the things they value. The right to own without fear of others impinging on this is really important in my eyes. I'm not saying that I personally would take a 9iron to a burglar but I wonder if maybe doing so is important to assert my right to live safely and happily.

I'd rather have everyone brainwashed to walk away from fights than to have everyone brainwashed to engage in violence as they choose.

I'm not advocating random violence by any means. I'm just pointing out that "walk-away from conflict culture" has removed consequence from society. People can act like jerks knowing that only drunks are likely to take offence and call them up on it.

pearsquasher

I agree with Columok for the most part but that doesn't in any way negate what I said about the particular intances shown on the videos. In hindsight all of the cases could have been handled differently. Not passivly, not by doing nothing... but not with the violent consequences we see.

There's other options to hitting someone so they loose teeth/knock their head off the ground...and a well rounded martial artist should study them .....that's all I'm saying.. and its said, again, in total retrospect obviously.

Yes, I could go nuts when the scumbag smacks my girlfirend.... but I'm aiming for non-violent - but physical - handling of the situation. Because the law dictates that I do AND it's my own inclincation too. I personally train in "violent" physical movement so as to avoid it. My martial arts is also particularily geared for this as well.. so when I see the above altercations, I naturally see... with hindsight... how violence could have been avoided. I've had my own personal experiences where my training diorectly allowed me to diffuse a situation physically but without striking. Had I just known boxing and used that... I would have landed in trouble. I'm not saying a boxer cannot walk away... but its not his training that dictates that tactic is it? I feel a martial arts SHOULD have that tactic inherently built in though....Bujinkan does AND it's very physical too. It's not a walk in the park though.

Charlie3dan

Interesting. Like pearsquasher I think alot of conflict can be avoided or dealt with in non violent ways. This stuff is simple but this is where most people go wrong.

If it does get to the point where you are forced to defend yourself or again an attack could be completely unprovoked, then I wouldn't want anyone to hesitate to defend themselves.

In general though, I think pacifism is the best approach up to the point where it's hurt or be hurt, kill or be killed.

Sm0ke

ok firstly i do respect what u have been sayin in regards to none violence but i do disagree for the most part. To be honest tough, my views will be slightly skewed because i believe in Chaos and anarchy for all!

On a hormone level takeing away what our minds tell us, we have adrenalin. Adrenalin will dictate wether u will fight or leg it ( fight and flight innit?) . as martial artists you learn to control such instincts and as we are civilised society we do not act like the primitve animals (for the most part, discounting of course mark Coleman and his roid rageing XD) . now on an anarchic level they are good because it is simple pointless violence. I'm going to go with chaos for this one. Chaos is effectively fair, everyone one of the people that took a beating provoked the attack and imho deserved what they got. This again for me, does not change in the context. maybe in the last video that guy had sumthing really bad happen to him that caused him to lash out. He got put on his back by a random punch from a random stranger, maybe the pimp was high of his ass drunk /e, hes knocked out with one strike, The video with the girl being struck first
that was no accident on the 2 drunks part and they deserved to be put down regardless of the context, they provoked the attacks. They deserved what they got, no more no less.

hmmm that looks a bit scathing, question away XD

* im using anarchy in the more socail term of the word as oppose to the political in this context.

r3nu4l

columok wrote: »

Pacifism in my eyes is inherently morally bankrupt. I have real difficulty accepting that it is more acceptable to walk away from someone who injures an innocent loved one than to stand up yourself and the things you value. I've been brainwashed to not get in fights and to always walk away but I think that this attitude is contributing to a total decline in society.

Interesting thread. Here's a personal example. On Christmas Eve I was on my way to Midnight mass. I have to walk past a bar and a niteclub to get to my church. As I approached the bar, there were 6 guys and 1 woman (all about 20) on the street. 5 of the guys were giving the guy on his own a hiding, taking turns to kick him in the head when he was down, kick him in the back, uncover his face to punch it etc. Now myself and Mrs r3nu4l had to walk past them but my senses of awareness were heightened (fight or flight). The 5 guys looked at me individually, saw I was watching but carried on, I was on my own after all.

About 3 seconds later I see 3 guys and 2 women who are across the road and just coming to a stop at a taxi rank. I crossed over to them and said, 'look if we all say nothing but just slowly walk back across the road with our hands out of our pockets and make it known by our presence that we don't approve then they might back off. At this stage a taxi driver pulled up, got out of his cab, radioed his base, to get the cops and then joined us. We walked slowly, saying nothin but spread ourselves out.

Result? The scumbags quickly stopped their attack and walked off. The entire time from my first witnessing the fight kick off to our peaceful intervention was less than 1 minute. Cops arrived about 5 seconds later and started making arrests.

That was an example of how peaceful intervention can work when enough people have decided 'We don't have to take this sh1t anymore in our community'.

It could easily have ended differently but I knew from the way they had looked at me at the start that they weren't interested in getting involved in a fair fight. Pacifism can work. I've trained in various martial arts but I'm no Walter Mitty who believes that I'm invincible as a result (if anything it's highlighted my weakneses ). I do believe that society needs to stand up to these people but it doesn't necessarily have to be by the use of violence.

Roper

columok wrote: »

In my eyes pacifism by default (like Irish neutrality in WW2) is spineless.

Neutrality then was infused with a paranoid sense of "we'll have the Brits back". Although there were some snooks cocked at the British which shouldn't have happened, I think by and large it was correct.

I would never advocate unprovoked violence. However (and again I'm not sure how I feel about this) I would question whether in respect to one's house, family or property someone shouldn't be within their rights to assertively defend the things they value. The right to own without fear of others impinging on this is really important in my eyes. I'm not saying that I personally would take a 9iron to a burglar but I wonder if maybe doing so is important to assert my right to live safely and happily.

Agree

I'm not advocating random violence by any means. I'm just pointing out that "walk-away from conflict culture" has removed consequence from society. People can act like jerks knowing that only drunks are likely to take offence and call them up on it.

Agree broadly. Like the example above though I'd say it doesn't always have to be a violent reaction. My mother and her friend (both in their 60s) stopped a man from taking a hiding by 5 lads one night by just being disapproving. Believe me, no one can do the withering, disapproving look quite like my Ma.

I am not, as a rule, a violent man. And I can think of very few situations where I might resort to violence. Like many people who've worked in certain situations it always amazes me how many people will walk by a man being beaten and not say a word, not even ring the cops or an ambulance. I won't be stitching up the batsuit anytime soon but I don't walk by. I don't wade in either as there are better ways.

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote:

It could easily have ended differently but I knew from the way they had looked at me at the start that they weren't interested in getting involved in a fair fight. Pacifism can work. I've trained in various martial arts but I'm no Walter Mitty who believes that I'm invincible as a result (if anything it's highlighted my weakneses ). I do believe that society needs to stand up to these people but it doesn't necessarily have to be by the use of violence.

Essentially you stopped the fight with the threat of a fair fight/consequence from the group of you. Your presence meant either a) more witnesses or b) a chance of them losing in an even numbers fight. If they had no fear of the consequence of your impromptu posse observing the random sh1tkicking then they wouldn't have stopped.

If this approach were widely used then there would need to be consistent known consequences from it. This works well in a small contained community as the fear of social ostracisation (and the loss of benefits associated with being accepted in a community) can be a threat in itself. In the case of anonymous people then they need to be afraid of arrest, afraid of a return beating or be overcome with a sense of shame and moral revulsion at what they're doing. If I'm teeing off on a grounded person's head repeatedly something tells me that I'm unlikely to have an epiphany anytime soon (too cynical?).