Scummer gets a bashing !!!

O'Leprosy

Go to about the last 40 seconds of it. Seems the good guy used some form of Kung Fu on him ? Still, I think he took a bit of a chance by letting scumbag come to headbutting/striking range too often. Enjoy

cowzerp

Funny clip, just show how a trained fighter finds it so easy to beat an untrained 1..

Hephaestus

cowzerp wrote: »

Funny clip, just show how a trained fighter finds it so easy to beat an untrained 1..

It also shows how full of sh!t alot of big mouths are. He didn't hit him very hard.

Its funny when they all start laughing at his stance but suddenly go WOOOOOO & shut up laughing when he floors the loud-mouth.

LOL at the scumbags mate closing the driveway gate @ the end

tallaght01

Certainly looks pretty wing chun-ish.

I love this pisstake video someone else made to rip the piss out of the skanger.

KC JONES

Reminds me of a fight I saw outside a pub. Thug was roaring and shouting for about ten mins, took off shirt other guy did nothing and then suddenly bareback scummer got one slap and went down. Bit like the vid except it was not a straight punch.

Wonder if the scummer would come back with mates tho or break windows etc. I would have decked him a lot earlier and not let him in headbutting range as someone else said. Jst shows how cowardly the scum are really, one punch lol

Jason Mc

A few swift toes to the snout would not have been out of order

zero19

Great video, fair play to him keeping his composure for that long!

dlofnep

Saw it a month or two back. Brilliant stuff. That guy remained very patient, and then BOOSH!

pearsquasher

Wonder if the scummer would come back with mates tho or break windows etc

No matter how amazing the physical technique on anyone... taking the above into consideration surely has to come to mind. Self-defence extends beyond the immediate physical treath and all options should surely be considered.

My first thought when I saw the video was.... "Close the door, call the cops.. stop giving the guy your attention". Really, big deal that he punched him in the nose. As usual with all these video clips.... the guy walked away probably angrier.

A close friend has to regularily deal with scummers looking for agro and venting their furstrations and he knows that getting physical is the last thing that should happen when other options appear. So he stacks the availabilty of those other options well in his favour ahead of time... Closing doors works well. Just standing there is going to lead to violence.

Jason Mc

Pearl thats all well and good but if you back down to a guy like that, u know u are getting more of same.

It's a very awkward situation, if you show weakness u might become the lame deer on a site like that

Nether the less maybe the Hood came back with a gang

GalwayKiefer

Fair enough the scumbag was all talk and the guy stretched him with one tap but why in God's name did he let him so close to him so many times? One or two boots to the face wouldn't have gone amiss either in my opinion.

I hope he put that bike somewhere else fairly lively afterwards.

papachango

The skanger is just that, a skanger. Congrats to the guy for flooring him but really he should have;
Finished the job properly because this guy will be back. Because if the shoe was on the other foot the skanger would have tried to dance on his head.
Slapped the other guy around for touching and closing his gate.
In any 'one versus many' situation, go straight to the biggest guy and dispatch him quickly. The rest of the gang will run away because they only cowards go around in gangs.
I feel sorry for the guy because his wife and kids were probably inside and terrified.
Personally I would have dumped the skanger headfirst into the wheelie bin and then brought the bin outside the gate and left it on the kerb. Bring out the trash!:cool:

noodletop

GalKiefer wrote: »

Fair enough the scumbag was all talk and the guy stretched him with one tap but why in God's name did he let him so close to him so many times? One or two boots to the face wouldn't have gone amiss either in my opinion.

I hope he put that bike somewhere else fairly lively afterwards.

prob bec he thought if he let him shout for a while he would bugger off . he prob had kids inside and didnt want it to turn nasty, mind you i bet if he knew the scumbag had a glass jaw he would have decked him a lot earlier.:D

keane2097

Lol - great to see him end up slithering out the driveway like the slimey turd he is!

suey71

Take a look at the good guys door window, looks like he's been victimised previously. I'd hate to live in a place like that and dont I know why he would want to stay there.
Are the people shouting his neighbours? poor guy.

I wonder what happened later.

KC JONES

As far as I can see the thug got punched between his hands. Friend said in Lau Gar Kung fu they are told to punch by crossing over hands at wrist to prevent space between hands.

It occurred to me the good guys hands were a bit low but I guess he knew what he was doing. Obviously!

In relation to gangs a friend said that a teacher in Lua Gar when confronted by a group asked which was the leader and decked him first. Rest ran. Scum are cowards but it is hard to watch all sides. Must be hard to live there

cushtac

papachango wrote: »

The skanger is just that, a skanger. Congrats to the guy for flooring him but really he should have;
Finished the job properly because this guy will be back. Because if the shoe was on the other foot the skanger would have tried to dance on his head.

Anything more than what was dished out would have gone beyond self-defence, which wouldn't be smart given he was being videoed.

KC JONES

cushtac wrote: »

Anything more than what was dished out would have gone beyond self-defence, which wouldn't be smart given he was being videoed.

So obviously the good guy was aware of all possibilities.He took a lot and used minimal force.
Where is that, the reg plate on the bike is yellow, NI or UK?

spurious

Accents sound like Liverpool.

papachango

cushtac wrote: »

Anything more than what was dished out would have gone beyond self-defence, which wouldn't be smart given he was being videoed.

Ah come on now, really?! I do not think any jury would leap to the scummers defence if he got 'ripened' up a bit from the guy he was antagonising.

papachango

KC JONES wrote: »

As far as I can see the thug got punched between his hands. Friend said in Lau Gar Kung fu they are told to punch by crossing over hands at wrist to prevent space between hands.

It occurred to me the good guys hands were a bit low but I guess he knew what he was doing. Obviously!

In relation to gangs a friend said that a teacher in Lua Gar when confronted by a group asked which was the leader and decked him first. Rest ran. Scum are cowards but it is hard to watch all sides. Must be hard to live there

Wrong. The thug did not get punched, he got hit, like a stab motion, in the neck, just at the side of the adams apple. which made drawing breath impossible for a couple of seconds. Best way to beat an opponent is to cut off the air supply to their muscles. Lactic acid builds up very quick and tires them out. A properly executed short and sharp neck trauma to an assailant will immobilise them yet wont leave any lasting damage.:cool:

KC JONES

papachango wrote: »

Ah come on now, really?! I do not think any jury would leap to the scummers defence if he got 'ripened' up a bit from the guy he was antagonising.

cushtac is right though, reasonable force is all you can use. Had he hit him any more he would be gone beyond that needed to defend

papachango

KC JONES wrote: »

cushtac is right though, reasonable force is all you can use. Had he hit him any more he would be gone beyond that needed to defend

It comes down to how you, or a jury, would interpret 'reasonable'.
I would say a quick poll would give you a better insight.
Would the good guy be justified in dishing out a bit more to the scummer?

cletus

papachango wrote: »

. Best way to beat an opponent is to cut off the air supply to their muscles. Lactic acid builds up very quick and tires them out. A properly executed short and sharp neck trauma to an assailant will immobilise them yet wont leave any lasting damage.:cool:

thats not how lactic acid build up works

KC JONES

papachango wrote: »

Wrong. The thug did not get punched, he got hit, like a stab motion, in the neck, just at the side of the adams apple. which made drawing breath impossible for a couple of seconds. Best way to beat an opponent is to cut off the air supply to their muscles. Lactic acid builds up very quick and tires them out. A properly executed short and sharp neck trauma to an assailant will immobilise them yet wont leave any lasting damage.:cool:

It was too quick for me but i think he struck between his hands as i said.Is that strike using the part of the defenders hand between the defenders thumb and first finger

KC JONES

papachango wrote: »

It comes down to how you, or a jury, would interpret 'reasonable'.
I would say a quick poll would give you a better insight.
Would the good guy be justified in dishing out a bit more to the scummer?

Wrong it is only reasonable to neutralise the threat. a quick poll is not much good in court. The defender followed him to the gate and got him and cos the thug did not attempt to attack again it would be assault to hit thug further:rolleyes:

KC JONES

cletus wrote: »

thats not how lactic acid build up works

How does it work? A build up of it will cause symptoms of anxiety won't it

papachango

cletus wrote: »

thats not how lactic acid build up works

as I understand it muscles need oxygen. If a muscle is working and runs our of oxygen the production of lactic acid surpasses the rate of removal of lactic acid. This causes lactic acid to build up, no?

papachango

KC JONES wrote: »

Wrong it is only reasonable to neutralise the threat. a quick poll is not much good in court. The defender followed him to the gate and got him and cos the thug did not attempt to attack again it would be assault to hit thug further:rolleyes:

A quick poll is exactly what a jury is in case you missed what I meant! The jury returns a verdict based on what they think, they are 'polled'.

papachango

Anyway I am glad he disabled the guy. I'd have taught him a harsher lesson, whilst still being within the law. As I feel this is not the first time the homeowner has been targeted. His front door was boarded up. With an audience like that was present he may as well have made an example of the scummer. Like types would reconsider dropping up again.

cletus

KC JONES wrote: »

How does it work? A build up of it will cause symptoms of anxiety won't it

papachango wrote: »

as I understand it muscles need oxygen. If a muscle is working and runs our of oxygen the production of lactic acid surpasses the rate of removal of lactic acid. This causes lactic acid to build up, no?

lactic acid is a by-product of muscles burning glucose, mostly in an anaerobic state. It is the result of exercise

@KC JONES: I've never heard of it causing anxiety, in fact, in relation to sport it is actually a good source of energy for the muscles in itself

@papachango: if it were simply a sudden stoppage of intake of oxygen, then every time you held your breath you'd cramp up

cletus

papachango wrote: »

A quick poll is exactly what a jury is in case you missed what I meant! The jury returns a verdict based on what they think, they are 'polled'.

not strictly true, juries can be directed with regards to the type of verdict to return, for example, you are accosted an hit by a guy outside a nightclub, you hit him back, he falls down, bangs his head and dies. In your court case the jury can be directed to return either a manslaughter or murder verdict, but not to returnn an innocent verdict

papachango

cletus wrote: »

lactic acid is a by-product of muscles burning glucose, mostly in an anaerobic state. It is the result of exercise

@KC JONES: I've never heard of it causing anxiety, in fact, in relation to sport it is actually a good source of energy for the muscles in itself

@papachango: if it were simply a sudden stoppage of intake of oxygen, then every time you held your breath you'd cramp up

Ah I can see where you misunderstood. I never said a sudden stoppage of oxygen is what causes lactic acid.

cletus

papachango wrote: »

Wrong. The thug did not get punched, he got hit, like a stab motion, in the neck, just at the side of the adams apple. which made drawing breath impossible for a couple of seconds.

Best way to beat an opponent is to cut off the air supply to their muscles. Lactic acid builds up very quick and tires them out. A properly executed short and sharp neck trauma to an assailant will immobilise them yet wont leave any lasting damage.:cool:

The two bolded statements, following each other directly, suggested to me that you believed that a build up of lactic acid would be the result of getting hit near the adams apple, which you suggest makes it difficult to draw breath for a few seconds

Sorry if I misunderstood, but on reading your post again, I still cant draw any other inference

tallaght01

The tabloids covered this a while back. The sun claim he tried to sue them for putting the vidoe on their website. They were willing to go to court, and he backed down swiftly.

It happened in St. Helens in the UK, which isn't a million miles from Liverpool as far as I know.

The scumer moved out of the estate because of the shame, and the guy who defended himself moved too, as he has a 22 month old daughter.

He's ex army, and fought in the gulf. He has 2 black belts and does some bodyguard work, according to the press.

crosstrainer1

they should take alook at Geoff thomson or peter constentaine From the BCA now that the way to handle it. It shows bullys only back down to one thing force

cowzerp

tallaght01 wrote: »

He's ex army, and fought in the gulf. He has 2 black belts and does some bodyguard work, according to the press.

Well the way he let the scummer grab his head and control it shows a serious lack of cop on in a situation like this, i like the clip but it was a scabby hit and was just against a bully that did not believe he would have to take a smack, the lad was lucky he did not get a head butt when he let the scummer in so close..

cushtac

papachango wrote: »

Ah come on now, really?! I do not think any jury would leap to the scummers defence if he got 'ripened' up a bit from the guy he was antagonising.

You can't predict what a jury would do, if indeed the case was heard in front of a jury. Self-defence is just that, defending yourself. If the attacker no longer poses an immediate threat to you then the onus is on you to stop. Once you go beyond that you're in the realms of assault.

Jason Mc

Problem was he touched his bin, that was uncalled for

U don't touch a man's bin.

That would throw anyone over the edge....

Touching a man's bin....!!!:eek:

ColinJennings

cletus wrote: »

not strictly true, juries can be directed with regards to the type of verdict to return, for example, you are accosted an hit by a guy outside a nightclub, you hit him back, he falls down, bangs his head and dies. In your court case the jury can be directed to return either a manslaughter or murder verdict, but not to returnn an innocent verdict

Not true.

While Judges do charge a jury, it is the role of counsel to ensure that a jury is properly charged and to raise any requisitions on elements of the Judge's Charge that they do not agree with. (Just to illustrate how complicated this area is, the leading book is about 2000 pages long). If you still disagree, you can appeal and there are enough appeals to keep the Court of Criminal Appeal busy.

In relation to murder/manslaughter, the only time I can see the jury being directed to return a verdict of Murder or in the alternative Manslaughter is if the accused admits to causing the death, but does not admit having the necessary intention to kill or cause serious injury to be guilty of murder. Then the jury would be directed to consider the intention of the accused.

cletus

^^^^my missus is the one with the law degree, I was expressing my simplified (and obviously wrong:D:D) understanding

ColinJennings

cletus wrote: »

^^^^my missus is the one with the law degree, I was expressing my simplified (and obviously wrong:D:D) understanding

Like any good legal advice, you said what the judge can do, not what they will do! :P

KC JONES

cletus wrote: »

@KC JONES: I've never heard of it causing anxiety, in fact, in relation to sport it is actually a good source of energy for the muscles in itself

It was in relation to anxiety research that i read that lactic acid can cause the symptoms of anxiety, sorry was not more clear. I think the point they were making that an anxious person could have a panic attack triggered by a build up of LA because it would mimic the symptoms andthey would think they were getting one.

Was that a web hand blow, is that what it is called.? Against the adams apple it would cut off air supply for a short while would it? The scummer seemed surprised too....

Agree he left the scummer too close almost pushing his head againstthe good guys head

Doug Cartel

KC JONES wrote: »

Was that a web hand blow, is that what it is called.?

It's called a punch in the face.

Against the adams apple it would cut off air supply for a short while would it?

I suppose getting hit in the adam's apple might cut off his air supply for a split second. It is a pretty sore place to get hit, but he was hit in the face, looked like it was probably the jaw to me.

The scummer seemed surprised too....

Yes, he had just been punched in square in the face.

I_Am_The_Walrus

dlofnep wrote: »

Saw it a month or two back. Brilliant stuff. That guy remained very patient, and then BOOSH!

What was it about?

Doug Cartel

That's as much info on it as I can find. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2674758/Yob-shown-being-floored-by-ex-soldier-threatens-Sun.html

Bres

just watched this video now... amazin'... if i was to guess i'd say the good guy wasn't being patient i'd say he was waiting on your man to swing so he could knock him out, why else would he be standing in such an antagonizing stance staring blankly at the guy, it was clearly winding him up... he didn't try diffuse the situation at all...

Boston

Bres wrote: »

just watched this video now... amazin'... if i was to guess i'd say the good guy wasn't being patient i'd say he was waiting on your man to swing so he could knock him out, why else would he be standing in such an antagonizing stance staring blankly at the guy, it was clearly winding him up... he didn't try diffuse the situation at all...

Well there's always someone who blames the victim. The chave wanted a confrontation. No point in going inside to wait for a brick through the window. By standing outside it was just one on one, but from the video it's clear there was a group of people hanging around; the situation wasn't going to be diffused until they got their entertainment.

Bres

definitely wasn't blaming the victim, i was just making an observation... the bad guy got more and more enraged which escalated to digs being swung... granted sometimes there's no talking to people but saying nothing definitely makes maters worse... and on top of that screw the crowd, yeah it was one on one but i'd still rather have a house between me and a scumbag and get a brick threw the window then have a child grow up without a father...

Boston

Bres wrote: »

definitely wasn't blaming the victim, i was just making an observation... the bad guy got more and more enraged which escalated to digs being swung... granted sometimes there's no talking to people but saying nothing definitely makes maters worse... and on top of that screw the crowd, yeah it was one on one but i'd still rather have a house between me and a scumbag and get a brick threw the window then have a child grow up without a father...

From reading up on the story behind the video he'd been harassed for along time. Living on English estates live the one in question is a nightmare and some times the best solution is the let these people you're not afraid of him. I don't know where the expectation comes from that people should be absolutely claim and always do the correct thing when in a high stress situation. About a year ago I came rushing out of my house at 11pm and straight into a gang of 5 - 6 youngun's sitting on my fathers car, all but one scattered, the last lad putting it up to me for all of five seconds before realising his hard man bull**** wasn't having an effect. It was probably a stupid idea on my part especially given this happen not to far from where I live 2 weeks previous but fuk it I wasn't going to sit there while my parents were scared to go outside the front door. Two nights ago I went after another guy checking the windows of houses on my road to see if he could break in. In other cities standing up for your locality and defending your home wouldn't be a weird thing, its only this country that expects people to hide away while scum take over the streets.

Dragan

papachango wrote: »

It comes down to how you, or a jury, would interpret 'reasonable'.
I would say a quick poll would give you a better insight.
Would the good guy be justified in dishing out a bit more to the scummer?

A good poll never occurs with a closed sample pool.