MMA in the street

Ex-UFC fighter Roger Huerta KO's a jacka$$ that KO's some girl.

http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=06122435-fea9-4358-91eb-330a87db4f24

Right on Roger.

He is my hero now. What a bada$$.

UPDATE -

Maybe not Roger?

http://www.cagepotato.com/tmz-misleads-everyone-roger-huerta-streetfight-video

UPDATE -

Roger says it was indeed him:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/8/5/1607241/quote-of-the-day-roger-huerta-i

""I approached the man calmly and said, "Do you know what you just did? You just knocked out this girl."

But Huerta claims the other guy responded, "F*ck you, f*ck these [censored], I'll knock out any f*ckin' bitch that I wanna f*ckin' knock out, I'll knock your f*cking bitch ass out."

Huerta added, "... and as he's saying this, he's taking off his shirt ... and at that point I was like, alright.'"

Huerta insists that he didn't throw the first punch -- and only reacted when the other guy "started swinging at me" ... and we all know what happened next.

"I got the better of him and I left," Huerta said.

The 27-year-old explained, "If that was my mom, if that was my sister, my spouse, anyone ... I would've wanted someone to step in and do something about it."

I love the part where they say he probably didn't consult a lawyer before saying this...

But I was thinking of what that guy must have thinking when he realized he was in trouble, remember that Eastwood scene from Gran Torino

Great ending to that movie

Huerto completely started it. He saw the guy knock out the woman. Which Huerta then proceeded to talk to the guy "Do you know what you just did, you knocked out a girl."

The guy started talking $hit. Which caused the hot headed Huerta to take off his shirt and throw down his hat. Next thing you know the Dude is running away for his life, he must have found out who he [censored] off. Next thing you know a few meters away Huerta is standing over the guy pounding the day lights out of him and his buddies are yelling and trying to pull him off.

I hope Huerta has been talking to his lawyer as alot of things can go bad here.

First, he a professional fighter.

Second, it was not self defense (let us remember that the law reverses on you when you cross the very thin line from protecting yourself or a loved one to becoming the assailant once the attacker has become incapacitated).

Third, As mentioned above, even with the good samraitan laws, you have to know when to stop or you have become the attacker.

But you gotta love the fact that he knocked the snot out of an a-hole!

VDJ

Yeah vdj is right, i did karate with a lawyer a while ago, and she told me if you beat up someone in the street, you can be taken to court for using "armed assault" because according to court, martial artists "know their body as a weapon"..

and do boxers have to insure their fists for the same reason?

This has nothing to do with anything (and thats all BS btw). The law is the law and applies to all. If you or a loved one is attacked(formally trained or not)and you succesfully incapacitate the attacker, say using a control method of some sort (LEO'S sometimes refer to them as "come alongs") and the attacker is UNABLE to assault you because you have control and you decide to bash him in the head, YOU have now crossed the line and have become the agressor and the original attacker can press charges against you! Doesn't matter what you know. The above statement about armed assault is crap, there is no special law you do not go to city hall and register your hands as a lethal weapon! If she was really a lawyer please let us know where she practices as so we can avoid it.

VDJ

Just to echo VDJ's post

Martial artists being classed as 'weapons' under law = Total. Undisputed. Complete. Utter. All encompasing. Bull. Sh1t.

Well in court ridiculous things can happen, how many people have sued mcdonalds (and won) because they are obese?

Either way, im not gonna go out and test her theory, id rather avoid fights, and defend myself/someone if need be, but i think it becomes assualt once the guy falls on the ground and you climb on his chest and start beating him senseless (well deserved imho, but lawyers always twist events around into their favour).

"Well in court ridiculous things can happen, how many people have sued mcdonalds (and won) because they are obese?"

Not many. Their biggest lost was the lady that burned herslf from spilling her coffee on herself.


"Either way, im not gonna go out and test her theory, id rather avoid fights"

Thats the first rule of self defense. Avoidance

"but i think it becomes assualt once the guy falls on the ground and you climb on his chest and start beating him senseless"

Thats what I have been saying and thats why your lawyer freinds statement is silly, it applies to ALL people, whether formally trained or not.

"but lawyers always twist events around into their favour."

Thats their job. Its up to the judges to adhere to the law and instruct the jury to do so as well in their deliberations!

VDJ

I agree this lawyer was either misinformed or misunderstood. I know of no precedent where fight training of any sort was given a legal status equivalent to being armed.

That said, it can be argued to a jury and used against you.

(From memory so forgive me if this is not exactly perfect in the facts)

Chuck Norris testified in a court case years ago. A man came home to find his wife in bed with her martial arts instructor.

The situation evolved to where the man held a gun on the instructor, and fired. He claimed he felt threatened and fired in self defense killing the man.

The argument was that at the range, if he waited for him to move he could be disarmed and possibly injured or killed himself.

Chuck Norris was brought to prove that was unrealistic. Unfortunately for the prosecutor, he was unable to fire before being disarmed.(he had to wait for Chuck to move) In fact I think they tried several times.

Again, not sure if the story went exactly that way but that's not the point. The point is they guy got off because he used the knowledge of the mans training as a basis for reasonable fear for his safety and convinced a jury. This is NOT the same thing as a court recognizing a Martial Artist as a weapon. I'm just saying if you want a way it could come up, here is an example.

My istructor gave us a little talk at one of my first classes as a black belt. We were talking about this subject and that old myth about registering your hands as lethal weapons with The State, just like a gun. We know that isn't true and is actually quite silly. But my instuctor did say,

"If you ever have to defend yourself or loved ones, or just plain get in a fight somewhere... If it goes to court, the prosecutor will portray you as a "professional fighter" becuase of that belt. You may not feel that way yet, but at this level, that's what you are: a professional fighter. You need to believe that and have that kind of faith in your abilities."

Now, he was giving this speach to try and istill confidence in our training. But it also applies to the topic here. The problem is the general public's perception of what a marial arts practitioner is cabable of.

By definition a "Professional" is compensated for their work. Therefore being called a "Professional" fighter would be inaccurate if you indeed do not get compensated for it.I think that if you are an instructor that a case could POSSIBLY be made as you are being paid to teach someone how to fight, though I personally think that the majority of people only consider people who climb into a ring and get paid for the exihbition of there match as a pro!

VDJ

While I agree you are technically correct, I think the point being made is you might be "portrayed" that way and to many people perception is reality, therefore accept that as a reality in your mind, even if technically it's not true.

The lawyer could easily counter and say while this person may not be paid to fight in a ring, he has spent x years studying 4-5 times a week or more in the pursuit of becoming a deadly fighter. He became so proficient in his study of this deadly art he was awarded the highest of honors, the coveted Black Belt. Now, would you consider a man who spends the lion share of his free time, or possibly his life learning how injure or kill someone with his bare hands a threat?

I know I sure would.

And I think a lot of juries would agree.

Still doesn't matter what you're "Portrayed" as. A professional is compensated. A good defense lawyer will argue that and when its all said and done, the judge instructs the jury to follow the law, not a 'portrayal". Its like this, a man is tried for rape and is sentenced for his crime. At the sentencing a family member decides to attack the convict, he has now committed a crime. Will a jury feel sympathy for him? Sure. do they need to convict him for his crime? Yes! The law is the law. They cannot consider him to be a pro if its not a way that he generates a legitimate income!

VDJ

But where in the law would that distinction matter? Neither one would be considered a weapon, so the situation where this would come up would likely be the state of mind of an attacker or victim. And if that person used excessive force because he feared a Martial Arts Expert, a jury might consider that fear reasonable. The fact that he was professional or not is a distinction they would not consider important, in their minds it could be argued they are equivalent.

These are not matters of law, but matters that juries must judge and do judge.

It's all about context.

In this hypothetical defense, it is required that the other party knows you are a MAist. Whilst a professional fighter like Huerta has a level of TV recognition, Harry the high ranking Hung Gar practitioner from the next town will be a complete mystery in a random street brawl, unless he is dumb enough to what happens at 2.10 in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24hSpYAIMhY

Ahh,

The Cannonball Run! Dom DeLuise is the best in that playing the super hero! I wish Hollywood would go back to entertaining us and leave their political views to themselves!

VDJ

This is BUNK. There is nothing in the law that even brings up one's skills. A slimy lawyer may try to pull this off but a good lawyer can easily debunk this. Now understand I am talking in context of us average people. Unless we have some type of fight record showing us as "professional fighters" then this will hold no weight. Perhaps somebody that is professional may not be so lucky if they started the situation and used excess force. The court "may" take that into account.

With now being involved in policing for a year, it isn't a matter of what you know but more of did you use excess force? Was it reasonable? Can you articulate why you were involved in the incident? And who can back up your story; witnesses.

So rest assured people, training martial arts does not make you a weapon. Face it, the majority of people in martial arts have never fought let alone a street fight. Many would not even know what to do if it did occur. But if you beat somebody up in the street regardless of what you know then you are subjected to the law; fine or conviction. So if you have to get involved make sure you can articulate it. And understand you probably will be picked up by the police if you started it or not; if you finished it or not.

Ah yes, the free taxi to the station. Taken that ride many a time in the past. Next stage was to be on first name terms with most of the local police force, and after that I didnt even have to take the free ride, I was allowed to finish my shift and pop in the next day to give my statement

Its better to know the judge

Rightly so Cord. There are some individuals we run into from time to time that are good people and really as police you are serving the community and you still want to be seen as "the good guys". Hard policing is necessary but not for all cases.

When we pick up other members to lend a favor instead of them driving, and being RCMP, we call it the Buffalo Taxi. Have also done this for some teens as would rather them be home then out later hours.

Let me start by saying again, I agree there is nothing in the law that makes a person a weapon and the lawyer's comments were bunk.

But let me make two quick points. If in this hypothetical legal situation, the fact that a person was a professional fighter was allowed into evidence, then the fact that a person was a trained Martial Artist might very well also be allowed into evidence. I don't think the distinction of being professional is a line in the sand. I do however think that would probably not be allowed in at all, as what you did would be far more important to whatever training you had.

The more likely place where it would matter is if someone use force against the Martial Artists. If I am correct, in order to justify excessive force a person needs to establish only they had "reasonable cause" to believe they were in danger of serious harm. And if they knew at the time, or had reason to believe their attacker was a trained Martial Artists, the courts may very well take that into consideration. (by court I mean judge or jury).

When defending one's self (depending on the state in the US) you are allowed to use reasonable, and/or measured force. But you only have to show you had "reasonable cause" to believe the level of danger of you where in. Not proof.

Well, I do in fact get paid to teach and was getting paid to do so at that time. But, I was not trying to argue my status as an amature or pro fighter. I was merely passing along a statement made by one of my instructors as an observation of how we would be PERCIEVED in a court of law if we happened to get in a fight on the street somewhere and had to defend ourselves again in that arena. Argueing the symantics of what makes you a professional in a given field is a completely different subject altogether.

But, for the record, while I would not consider myself a professional "fighter", I do consider myself a professional martial artist. Symantics again, I know. But that's my 2¢ on that. Perhaps I should have said, we are "professionally trained" fighters. Sorry if my phrasing was not to your liking.

Your statement, "as what you did would be far more important to whatever training you had" I totally agree. Again it will come down to justification of what you did and did you use excessive force.

If you are a professional fighter the court "may" take that into consideration if they found you guilty of excessive force. It would be very easy for a lawyer to establish a professional fighter as that information is readily available for access. In this day and age we can find fight records of any professional fighter online not to mention videos. However for somebody that trains martial arts, there would be no way to establish that "joe blow" trained any martial arts. That may not even come into the trial unless he decided to bring it up. And even if he did train martial arts, there would be no proof of how capable he is or if he is even capable of fighting. The majority of people in martial arts have never competed nor know how to fight.

Again this is all hypothetical but I guarantee you after having sat in court for other offenses, that the ridiculous does come up and you have to shake your head.

Whatever line of defense you would use, it would greatly help your case if you could talk intelligently about the continuum of force and how you followed it. If a prosector can prove that you escalated up the continuum without reasonable cause, your case is done with. The idea is to show how you matched the other guy step for step without being the one who escalated it.

Kathryn

Right, and just to circle back in my original post, it was the MA who gets shot based on the shooter having prior knowledge of his training and his feeling threatened by it, totally differently side of events.

Kimo

And add to that the poor guy that got stabbed to death in Thailand----he beat a guy in a bar fight and the loser can back and ambushed him with a knife later that night.

Its often a really bad idea to advertise your training.

And these days you need to watch out that the person you beat might just come back for some "payback."

Scary world.:(

A big part of it is if you're good at talking them into believing everything you did was necessary. To a great extent that is. And every state is different, just like every country. Everyone should be familiar with their region's views on self defense and fighting. Virginia for instance is vastly different from say Washington State or New York. In everything from fist fightign to shooting someone in self defense.

Thats not strictly true, as matching force to force is not the definition of reasonable.

For example, if you have tried avoidance and verbal de-escalation when faced with aggression, but the threat remains, and you feel it to be genuine risk to your safety, you are more than entitled to strike first. That is still self defence, even though you have technicaly escalated the situation.

Self defence is doing only what is necessary to prevent harm to yourself when faced with immediate danger. Thats it. If you only have to throw one punch to deter an aggressive drunk, then thats SD. If you have to stamp repeatedly on the head of guy on angel dust because he just keeps coming at you, then that is self defence too, even if you kill him.


[/quote]

What Cord said. Just repeatedly reaffirm that you were in fear of your life and the attacker was demonstrating hostile intent and/or attempting or in the process of committing a hostile act. You have to be careful with your words.

Is the sport realistic street fighting?

Not so much - it's a sport - a controlled environment.

That said - beware of those that say that MMA training MMA will not help you in a street fight, as they are absolutely incorrect.

Being trained in multiple combat-tested martial arts (BJJ, Sambo, Wrestling, Muay Thai, etc) is nothing but beneficial if you ever need to fight a single unarmed attacker.

While one would need to use good judgment in what to apply to a street fight scenario (not everything in the ring would be wise on the street), it certainly does not hurt to have more tools in your arsenal.

NO ADS

In reply to Cord, I don't know if your employer has prepared you to defend your actions in a court of law, but I've been through coaching on this. It's the person in the fight who makes the next step up on the spectrum who will bear more of the burden in a court case, at least in a US court. You have to show that you did everything possible prior to using force, or that you meet a "reasonable man" or "reasonable woman" standard of being in fear of immediate harm to yourself or another person. Immediat harm is a high standard, verbal threats don't meet it, usually.

Meh. I certainly would not wait for an attacker to start attacking if I felt sure it was going to happen, courts be damned.

some nasty street/mma fight here.. ouch

link

<<Re: MMA in the street [Re: iaibear]
johnride
Stranger
Registered: 10/06/10
Posts: 1
Is the sport realistic street fighting?>>

That's what I get for commenting on the ending of "Gran Torino" on page one.

Right on.

I don't know how the law is everywhere else, but here in Canada we have a law for 'agreed combat'--basically if two people agree to fight, then it is legal and difficult to be charged with assault. Of course, if you step over the line of what was agreed to (say trying to kill the guy), then you will be charged. It's a fine line.

Pre-emptive is the way to go, imo, better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

I utterly disagree. This is the period of time that I live in for my job. It is the time during which you have a chance to stop the situation in its tracks, through tools like command presence, distraction, talking. That few minutes of faceoff is very volatile, but it really is the time to drop your ego and figure out a way where no one gets hurt. To just jump in and start the fight is to give in to the situation instead of controlling it. I get paid to control the situation.

Kathryn

I agree, but I actually don't think you're in disagreement with Matt and Stormdragon here... The (perfectly commandable) way in which you propose to "stop the situation in its tracks" implies you're still dealing with a situation you have some degree of control over, therfore not one in which you feel 100% "sure it was going to happen".

I don't think anyone was arguing the fact that it's better to control the situation... I think what Matt meant is that once it appears clearly you no longer have (nor can regain) any control over it and it is unstoppably headed toward a violent attack, it's better not to actually wait for the said unavoidable attack to occur, despite the potentially hot legal water that might put you in afterwards.

Sometimes it's not a matter of ego. If you are sure you are about to be attacked, then good self defense is pre-emptive.




Also, regarding the Huerto video, I don't really think he 'attacked' first...if the dialogue went as is recorded (with the guy saying he would kick Hueta's ass) then he had just cause to do what he did. Could he have not said anything? Yes, probably. But I don't think that would have been the right thing to do my any means.

Pre emptive action is not an alternative to de-escalation. It is not a 'brain or brawn' situation.

It is always gratifying when, through communication, you can gain control of another, and dissuade them from attempting physical violence. In a perfect world, every encounter would be met with the perfect body language, tone, and just the right words to make this happen.

In the real world, a 90% de-escalatory success rate is great, so that still means that 1 in 10 are not going to buy it, no matter how good a diplomat you are, or how daunting you look.

With this guy, its better to communicate in a language he understands, and its also best to get the first word in.

Only experience tells you when its right for pre-emption, and with good judgement, there will be no legal comeback whatsoever, as part of the de escalation process is also providing a chain of evidence that you did everything within your power to avoid physical conflict.

Some people cannot be reasoned with, be it through drugs, booze, mental issues, or personal issues. If they want to lash out, and choose you as their target, then its going to happen. Spot them early, and administer unconsciousness where appropriate.

What I am saying is that when someone enters a potential fight situation, their mindset is often what determines the outcome. You can always come up with a seemingly valid reason to throw the first punch, and you will never know how it could have ended differently. I really like what Matt Fury writes about this topic on his website. He's an ex street fighter who now teaches self defense.

That is true to an extent, but you are only in control of half of the mix. The other person's mindset is just as important. If you can 'pick the lock' to their brain, and influence that, then sure, de escalation will work. There are situations where this is impossible though.

Look at it this way: Ceasar Milan has a fantastic ability to read canine behaviour, and interact with it to a positive outcome.
However, put him in a room with a dog afflicted with rabies, and there would be NOTHING he could do to influence that dog, because the dog is not in control of its own mindset.

I have no idea of your experiences, or their context, but I can assure you, that if you are dealing with people under the influence of substances, or who have a mental problem, all the communication in thw world is of little use.



I dont care how else it could have ended. I go into every confrontation with the express intention of resolving it peacefully. As I never instigate aggression, the onus is on my aggressor. Its his show. He can walk away anytime he wants. I encourage that, seek to have it happen, but if it comes to a point where it is clear that he is intent on violence, then thats what he gets. He doesnt get a free shot, he doesnt get the luxury of revving his engine to its launch point. I shut it down.

It is also worth noting, that if you do let an attacker choose when it gets physical on their terms, the attack tends to be longer, and stronger. If you take that decision from them, you knock the fight right out of them with less physical interaction needed. This can actually mean less damage to both of you.

Like I said, I honestly do not think pre emption can be taught, it is something that is learned. But with experience, you can read an aggressor, and you can make decisions based confidence. Confidence in your de escalation, and confidence in your reading of the person you are dealing with.
With that confidence in place, there are no 'what if's', there is just getting home safe, knowing you had no other choice.

You may not care, Cord, but I am sure that your employer does. We work in the same field, correct? Over the years I have dealt with violent drunks in a club, violent psychotics in a hospital, out of control patients as an EMT. Punches get thrown--so what? I know how to get out of the way and keep others clear as well. If there was a reason to get preemptive I somehow missed it. Yes, I have had to chase some people down and restrain them, but there are very specific techniques for that, and you don't go in alone. The laws may be different in the UK, here they are very specific. Rght now there is a group of club bouncers from my neighborhood facing possible murder charges because they improperly restrained a drunk patron, and he died.

19 years in the industry, and not one prosecution would indicate my judgement is sound.



You are lucky to have that set up, my back up can be up to 10 minutes away.



They are in trouble for not using appropriate force, not for the timeline in which the force was applied.

Reasonable force is not dictated by the threat to you being made a physical reality first. There simply has to be a legitemate threat to your safety and/or others. If a guy walks around brandishing a knife, or pistol, police are not law-bound to wait for him to use it, and have every right to be pro-active in the cessation of that threat.

The same logic applies to someone who maintains threatening and aggressive behaviour, and refuses to respond to verbal attempts to diffuse that aggression. You do not have to wait for them to attack before you can legally defend yourself from the threat of physical harm. You just have to prove that you acted reasonably in response to the situation - a black eye doesnt act as a free pass, any more than a pre-emptive action means a legal battle.

That is the case pretty much everywhere.

Pre-emptive is, Self Protection, Kathryn with respect, you are talking about self defense, which these days imo, is idealistic unless you are working in EMT or where there are cameras watching your every move etc etc, for the street or away from work constraints, Pre-emptive WILL ! save your life.