• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should Not Be Used Against You In Court If You Get Into A Fight

Lursa said:
He has posted multiple threads seeking justification for being able to beat up people who offend him.
Click to expand...

Heh...is that so? Wow... Not much of a debate challenge.
 
joko104 said:
The lawyers were insistent that I obtain NO rating and enter no competitions in which a title could be awarded nor even a competition recognized as such.
Click to expand...
So you must've trained only in styles that didn't have ranking systems.
 
Lursa said:
He has posted multiple threads seeking justification for being able to beat up people who offend him.
Click to expand...
I never said I should be allowed to beat somebody up for offending me, I've only stated that I should be able to use physical force if somebody gets physical with me first. Obviously you can't legally get physical with somebody just because of something they say, even if it does offend you.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So you must've trained only in styles that didn't have ranking systems.
Click to expand...

I, as well, attained a tenth degree obsidian belt while eschewing all competition, training and even watching of martial arts. My lawyers recommended that if I was gonna be a ninja, it's best I have nothing to do with any of that. They don't know about obsidian belts anyway.
 
DebateChallenge said:
I never said I should be allowed to beat somebody up for offending me, I've only stated that I should be able to use physical force if somebody gets physical with me first. Obviously you can't legally get physical with somebody just because of something they say, even if it does offend you.
Click to expand...
Yes you have...do I need to go find that thread?
 
d0gbreath said:
Tyson's 1988 street fight was against Mitch Greene, another professional fighter.
Click to expand...

Well if what you said is true about professional boxers not being allowed to hit people because they would get a battery with a deadly weapons charge if they do then both would get charged with that.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Well if what you said is true about professional boxers not being allowed to hit people because they would get a battery with a deadly weapons charge if they do then both would get charged with that.
Click to expand...

Having a law doesn't mean that charges will always be brought. Neither one of them charged the other one.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Lets say you get into a physical confrontation and it goes to court. You get into a fight and you get caught and it ends up going to court. There is certain stuff that the court should not take into account as its none of their business. For instance, lets say you’ve got a background in the martial arts. That is not something the court should take into account or even know about. Even if they do know about it they should not use it against you. Even if you do hurt somebody in a fight, whether or not you do know martial arts should not come into play in court. If you do know martial arts that should not get you in even more trouble in court if you do end up hurting somebody in a fight.
Click to expand...

Your skills/training absolutely should be used as should size/strength differences - it goes to the credibility of whether you are in fear and the objective reasonableness of that fear, as it relates to the elements of self-defense.

I see no analysis of the elements of self-defense or any assault it is used against in in your post. To use a legal term, this makes your post "crappy"
 
Mr Person said:
Your skills/training absolutely should be used as should size/strength differences - it goes to the credibility of whether you are in fear and the objective reasonableness of that fear, as it relates to the elements of self-defense.

I see no analysis of the elements of self-defense or any assault it is used against in in your post. To use a legal term, this makes your post "crappy"
Click to expand...
As I said before in this thread, when guns are used in confrontations, whenever there's any shooting involved, the courts go crazy. But since any kind of martial arts training is nowhere in the same league as a gun it should be overlooked by the courts. If a person doesn't use any weapons in a confrontation they should get in less trouble in court than if they did, no matter what kind of martial arts training they've got.
 
DebateChallenge said:
As I said before in this thread, when guns are used in confrontations, whenever there's any shooting involved, the courts go crazy. But since any kind of martial arts training is nowhere in the same league as a gun it should be overlooked by the courts. If a person doesn't use any weapons in a confrontation they should get in less trouble in court than if they did, no matter what kind of martial arts training they've got.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you bring up gun and compare it to martial arts it will never be a logical comparison. Its a completely failed and retarded analogy. Gun is not a standard for "court consideration" during confirmations, assault or self-defense.

Your op and feelings on this matte have completely fail has you haven't been able to back them up or provide any logical reason what so ever why training shouldn't be considered in a court of law, most personal factors are.
 
If a fight erupts involving me and a martial arts expert, how do I prove that they are trained in martial arts?
They can just say that they don't know martial arts, or that they trained years ago but they were not really any good at it.
Then it's my word against theirs.

This is why the entire argument about martial arts being used against you in court is BS, except in a very very few instances, like for instance if the opponent is an established and well known expert and instructor and has a long publicly known history in it, and if they instigated the fight as the aggressor, and if they inflicted a level of harm that is wildly over what would normally be expected.
Say, for instance, they break your leg and your arm and five ribs because you flipped them off.

The whole "their hands are registered as lethal weapons" business is mostly nonsense.
Any well trained fighter, be they martial arts experts or not, might wind up in trouble for overreacting and inflicting excessive injury for a piddling slight.

I cannot think of any instances where it was used against anyone who was legitmately defending themselves from attack.
If there are any such instances, I'd be surprised.
Maybe a handful of overly eager bouncers who went way too far in the dispatch of their official duties.
But I knew one bouncer who wasn't a martial artist in Minneapolis in the 70's who inficted incredible amounts of damage on patrons, and got away with it.

If any of you knew about The Poodle Club on 31st and East Lake Street, you know exactly who I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
No matter how many times you bring up gun and compare it to martial arts it will never be a logical comparison. Its a completely failed and retarded analogy. Gun is not a standard for "court consideration" during confirmations, assault or self-defense.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. If you use a gun in a physical confrontation you had better believe it will be brought up in court, big time.

AGENT J said:
Your op and feelings on this matte have completely fail has you haven't been able to back them up or provide any logical reason what so ever why training shouldn't be considered in a court of law, most personal factors are.
Click to expand...
Because personal activities such as training in the martial arts is private stuff that the courts has no business getting involved in or even knowing about.
 
DebateChallenge said:
1.)Sure it is. If you use a gun in a physical confrontation you had better believe it will be brought up in court, big time.
2.)Because personal activities such as training in the martial arts is private stuff that the courts has no business getting involved in or even knowing about.
Click to expand...

1.) quote me saying otherwise. .oh that right you cant you just posted another failed lie
Fact remains Its a completely failed and retarded analogy. Gun is not a standard for "court consideration" during confirmations, assault or self-defense.
2.) we get you feel that why but your failed little fweelings dont matter to facts
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
If a fight erupts involving me and a martial arts expert, how do I prove that they are trained in martial arts?
They can just say that they don't know martial arts, or that they trained years ago but they were not really any good at it.
Then it's my word against theirs.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Martial arts is not like a gun in that if you do use a gun in a confrontation it will be just about impossible to say you didn't use it and get the courts to believe you. With martial arts on the other hand, you can deny that you know any martial arts.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
This is why the entire argument about martial arts being used against you in court is BS, except in a very very few instances, like for instance if the opponent is an established and well known expert and instructor and has a long publicly known history in it, and if they instigated the fight as the aggressor, and if they inflicted a level of harm that is wildly over what would normally be expected.
Click to expand...
If you are a well known expert and instructor than it will be hard to deny it in court but if you're just a student its another story.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Say, for instance, they break your leg and your arm and five ribs because you flipped them off.
Click to expand...
Obviously you can't physically attack somebody just because they flipped you off, that's just common sense. As I've said in the past, if somebody gets physical with you first you should be able to respond with physical force but you can't use physical force because of what somebody says or because they flip you off, speaking of which, Lursa Im still waiting for you to show me where I said you should be able to use physical force against somebody who offends you.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
The whole "their hands are registered as lethal weapons" business is mostly nonsense.
Any well trained fighter, be they martial arts experts or not, might wind up in trouble for overreacting and inflicting excessive injury for a piddling slight.
Click to expand...
Hands can be deadly weapons without any martial arts training. Where I went to college there was a case where a student was strangled to death by her boyfriend. To the best of my knowledge he did not know any martial arts but regardless, you don't need to know any martial arts to be able to strangle somebody. So there you have it, hands can be deadly weapons with or without any martial arts training.

Checkerboard Strangler said:
I cannot think of any instances where it was used against anyone who was legitmately defending themselves from attack.
If there are any such instances, I'd be surprised.
Maybe a handful of overly eager bouncers who went way too far in the dispatch of their official duties.
But I knew one bouncer who wasn't a martial artist in Minneapolis in the 70's who inficted incredible amounts of damage on patrons, and got away with it.

If any of you knew about The Poodle Club on 31st and East Lake Street, you know exactly who I am talking about.
Click to expand...
I don't know the details but I do know of a case where a martial arts student who was involved in a physical confrontation really had the book thrown at him. His martial arts background? He was a white belt who had been doing it for about six weeks. As for the judge, she happened to be very much against martial arts.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Yes, martial arts skills should be used against you in court.
Click to expand...

I don't think it should, unless you started it. In any fight, if you are the aggressor, that should be taken into account. If one person is better at fighting than another, why should that matter in their punishment? What should matter is if they were the aggressor and if they took it too far (like continuing to beat on someone after they are already beaten)
 
Sampson Simpson said:
I don't think it should, unless you started it. In any fight, if you are the aggressor, that should be taken into account. If one person is better at fighting than another, why should that matter in their punishment? What should matter is if they were the aggressor and if they took it too far (like continuing to beat on someone after they are already beaten)
Click to expand...

I agree that if you can show you are not the aggressor than you should have a martial arts defense claim in law.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
I don't think it should, unless you started it. In any fight, if you are the aggressor, that should be taken into account. If one person is better at fighting than another, why should that matter in their punishment? What should matter is if they were the aggressor and if they took it too far (like continuing to beat on someone after they are already beaten)
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Lets say you get into a physical confrontation and it goes to court. You get into a fight and you get caught and it ends up going to court. There is certain stuff that the court should not take into account as its none of their business. For instance, lets say you’ve got a background in the martial arts. That is not something the court should take into account or even know about. Even if they do know about it they should not use it against you. Even if you do hurt somebody in a fight, whether or not you do know martial arts should not come into play in court. If you do know martial arts that should not get you in even more trouble in court if you do end up hurting somebody in a fight.
Click to expand...

You seem to be obsessed with getting into fights. I'm not a lawyer but suffice it to say, if you can prove that you were the victim and was defending yourself, you should be good regardless of what training you have.
 
Maccabee said:
You seem to be obsessed with getting into fights. I'm not a lawyer but suffice it to say, if you can prove that you were the victim and was defending yourself, you should be good regardless of what training you have.
Click to expand...

No Im obsessed with being able to take care of myself and being able to defend myself and not get in trouble for doing so. I don't look for fights.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Yes, martial arts skills should be used against you in court.
Click to expand...

What if, like me, your skills are gained by watching a lot of UFC matches and not gained by dojo training?
 
DebateChallenge said:
No Im obsessed with being able to take care of myself and being able to defend myself and not get in trouble for doing so. I don't look for fights.
Click to expand...

Staying out of a fight is a big problem where you live?
 
DebateChallenge said:
No Im obsessed with being able to take care of myself and being able to defend myself and not get in trouble for doing so. I don't look for fights.
Click to expand...

I work in a field where I'm likely to get into a fight and yet you don't see me asking for legal advice about getting into fights on this forum.
 
Maccabee said:
I work in a field where I'm likely to get into a fight and yet you don't see me asking for legal advice about getting into fights on this forum.
Click to expand...

Are you a police officer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom