Comments on: COPS: Karate Assault

By: Cobra-Kai

Cobra-Kai — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:50:06 +0000

The random guy sitting down not doing shit i would believe him he did’nt do nothing he was’nt involved so he has no reason to lie he just sat there and watched sipping his drink wishing he had popcorn.

By: J.T.

J.T. — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:45:42 +0000

Actually Dojo Rat, the law (in *almost* every jurisdiction) doesn’t require anything of the sort. Merely that the a reasonable person would have considered that a fight was imminent. Once it’s clear that you are going to be attacked, you can pre-empt it, and it’s pretty clear from John’s story that he was going to “defend himself.”

Former Bouncer

By: Dojo Rat

Dojo Rat — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:24:52 +0000

By the letter of the law, the guy who actually threw the punch and hit the other guy is at fault.
People can posture and call each other all kind of names, but when you lay your hands on someone, that’s when the law gets involved.
The thing to start with would be to bring the altercation to the attention of the bartender. The bartender is leagally responsible for anything that goes on in a drinking establishment. When they put their eyes on the conflict, they are the ultimate witness the police will listen to, especially if you are in a situation where you have to resort to violence.

By: CreidS

CreidS — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:40 +0000

Ryan is telling how he felt, John is telling a story. Look at all the ways he is trying to sway the audience:

just to relax (why did you get into a fight then?)
I could see
calmly suggested
just blew up
I knew I’d have to defend myself

Ryan probably was a jerk — but you are much more likely to see someone at a bar trying to pick a fight than trying to end one, in my experience.

By: Dan Paden

Dan Paden — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:38:25 +0000

I don’t believe either of them, not entirely. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between. But it seems to me that it’s generally a sign of hubris and poor judgment to try intervening in an argument. Defending someone who’s actually under attack is one thing; tryin’ to get in someone else’s bidness is another.

By: J.T.

J.T. — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:36:29 +0000

Ryan, actually. John says he “has” to get involved, but after his utter failure, nothing happens. He uses rather exaggerated language, including labeling something a “sucker punch” when by his own admission he’d had time to drop into a “defensive stance,” because he “knew he’d have to defend himself,” then the guy “runs away.” Taking the woman John came to save with him, as well.

Ryan’s on much better standing, he does not engage in any behavior that escalates the conflict (you can say “damn” in public,) until John makes it clear by physical preparation he is planning on engaging, uses a single context-appropriate technique, disengages immediately, gathers his loved ones, leaves the threat area, and awaits if not contacts the authorities. Ryan’s actions meet the definition of self-defense in most jurisdictions, John’s actions probably never do.