Being the nail is one of the reasons I like the gym so much. It is a constant reminder of what it feels like to be helpless. I hate that feeling but it helps me be better at remaining calm and reminds me to treat others with mercy.
That armbar was completely unnecessary. I think that black belt let his anger dictate his actions. He wasn’t trying to subdue the drunk. He was trying to hurt him.
I agreed..this black belt seems to have either anger or ego issues...he could have control dominate and negotiate with the drunk instead of over doing I er acting his role. Kinda gives jujitsu black belts a bad rep esp those who claim the whole gentle art movement
@@losdeldostacos8007 the old school Gracies...the newer generation has gotten away from this ideology..many of them are more about self defense and getting away ...the older Gracies had egos and the violent 💪 man Brazilian mentality
Ah yes, all the responibility lies with the defendant. The aggressor is innocent as always... Let me show you my perspective. Aggessor FORCES the other guy to be the defendant. He did not want it since he clearly trying to walk away. The defendant handled the situation as best he could and in my eyes he did great. How about this. The aggressor stops stalking and beeing aggressive towards the defendant and the defendant walks away. Then nothing happens. See, simple. Cause and effect. But nooooo, the other guy wanted action and he got exactly what he asked for. It's called karma. Nothing wrong with defending yourself in any way you see fit appropriate untill the aggressor is not a threat anymore.
Great breakdown, and also a great point about the dangers of the free hand of an opponent who may have access to a weapon. The drunk was barely able to muster a punch, so I have to wonder if there was any real danger there. Definitely a FAFO on the part of the inebriated man. From a martial arts perspective, this is an example of why I never really liked these arm bar holds and, even more, the scarf hold, as a finishing technique. In class, the opponent taps and that's the end of it. The video shows an armbar "submission" taken to its real-life logical conclusion. The opponent will struggle, and the person applying the armbar needs to expend significant energy to hold the person without flipping the switch and hyperextending the elbow. Once the elbow is destroyed, I say it's still 50/50 whether the opponent will give up on the fight.
Honest breakdown. Very wise interpretation. My former instructor taught me that self defense is just a legal term. It's whether or not the judge (or jury) aligns w a defendant's depiction of events that defines a case as self defense or assault. Ambiguity is the skeleton of the case and whoever can effectively flesh it out w an agreeable and congruent narrative has significant persuasive favor, lest contrary evidence presents itself. Self defense is descriptive terminology.
Hello David. Nice vid. Thanks for that. Could you elaborate on what is your plan to avoid a Lucky punch in a self defense situation? Cheers mate. Have a nice one.
Does the average BJJ athlete understand the laws of self defense?? (ability, opportunity, jeopardy…. And especially disparity of force and proportionality for this particular guy) I think most of us self-defense firearm practitioners (with light edged weapons, and combatives experience for me in particular) are really hyper focused on the Law of Self Defense primarily as it pertains to the application of deadly force But I’ve never really asked any BJJ guys (Who don’t also carry a concealed handgun) about their knowledge of the wall when it comes to physical and lethal force.
It was not self-defense at all. Watch 0:05 - 0:07 The "black belt" attacker is following the victim. If you want to plea self-defense and de-escalating, never follow. 0:05 - 0:07 is a clear period where the "black belt" could simply walk away. The "black belt" didn't show any serious effort to de-escalate. No hand gestures, no genuine attempt to leave a dangerous situation. And he throws the first punch in the situation in which he puts himself. We do not have audio but from gestures and movement we can't rule out the possibility of verbal aggression and escalation from the side of the "black belt". Sorry, from the video provided, there is not any proof it was self-defense at all.
@@streamingnowstreamingnow2568 I don't contradict the fact that the drunk was the aggressor in this situation. You don't understand it. To plead self-defense first of all you can't be the aggressor in the situation. It can't work that way so you will provoke and escalate and then when the other party attacks you, you will just plea self-defense. No, no, no, It doesn't work that way. In this situation both parties are aggressors. So it can no longer be a self-defense situation. It's called a brawl and both parties are responsible for the damage both parties cause. If you dislocate the other guy's elbow, then it could be a misdemeanor or a crime depending on severity. If you kill other guy you will go to jail. The self-defense is the legal instrument to protect you from those charges. But you can't be the aggressor first! So when both parties are aggressors as in this case neither of them can be protected by the self-defense. To be protected by self-defense you must self-defend yourself. You must try to get out of the situation you didn't put yourself by your own aggressive behavior. This is not what can be seen in this video. It is not clear that the "black belt" was trying to get out of the situation. There is a clear 3-second long period where he was not trying to get out of the situation and probably even verbally escalated the situation. You can't move toward the attacker unless this is the only escape route. It's clearly not the case. You can't move toward the attacker unless it's a part preemptive strike during or immediately before the attack. It's clearly not the case. So no, it was not a self-defense situation, it was a brawl. Both parties are aggressors and both parties are responsible for any damage they caused. If you want to plea self-defense check your ego. It's hard, believe me, it's pretty hard. I know from my personal experience. Don't be like the "black belt" in the pre-conflict phase in this video if you don't want to bear the consequences.
You are allowed to defend yourself against a imminent threat. Even if the aggressor haven't started the physical altercation yet. Beeing threatend, followed and god know what else, makes you afraid, adreanaline spikes and your clear mind is now all mushy and you go ogaboga brain. The aggressor caused this by following and escalating.
@@staarfajter922 "You are allowed to defend yourself against a imminent threat. Even if the aggressor haven't started the physical altercation yet." -- Again, I don't contradict that. "Beeing threatend, followed ..." See there is the problem, who followed who? I can see in the video that the "black belt" was a considerable time following the "drunk". So at least both were engaged in mutually aggressive behaviour. There is no sign that the "black belt" was feeling threatened and trying to get out of the dangerous situation. On the contrary, there are signs he is escalating the situation. You can't argue that "You are allowed to defend yourself against a imminent threat." when your behavior clearly contradicts that you perceive a situation as a "threat". You simply, never follow the threat. It's clear telltale that the "black belt" didn't perceive the situation as a threat. "The aggressor caused this by following and escalating." -- Yeah, on the video, it can be clearly seen at least 3 seconds when the "black belt" is following the "drunk" and is escalating the situation. Somebody could even consider him the aggressor. So when he preemptively strikes the "drunk" he provokes him. You can't provoke an attack and then plea self-defense. The days of the Wild West are long over.
For self defense ofc. You are allowed to defend yourself against imminent threat or as you percieve it even if the aggressor hasn't started the altercation yet.
So, the BJJ guy was clearly way younger than the drunk, and probably in better shape and could have easily outrun the drunk (Stoner? ). Which I'm sure was a question he would have been asked by the cops or a prosecutor in court if things got that far. And I have one other point. Is it just me, or did nobody notice that the BJJ guy was not wearing any shoes. At least that's how it looked to me, and I confirmed it when I blew the video up to Full Screen. As soon as I did that, I saw the exposed toes and the bottoms of his rather dirty feet. Which might explain why a) he didn't try to run, and b) his kicks to the guys head were less than spectacular in terms of having an effect. Aside from possible ego issues and a lack of knowledge of the legal aspects of self defense, he might have some other issues going on.
That's why it's important to have a striking background, but most of these BJJ only lads swear that BJJ is the best street fighting art 🤣😁🤔🤷🤨 falou galera 🇧🇷🤙👊
