Is The Fence just a Sucker Punch?

Whenever Ive had discussions with people about The Fence before too long the same old comment gets thrown into the discussion ''its easy to hit someone when they are not expecting it try it when they are ready''
I feel a lot of people just dont get the fence probably because they want to get into a fight not avoid it.
But is The Fence really classed as a sucker punch a cowards way?
Personally I think its fantastic IM just exploring the subject from other perspectives.

the fence is so much more than just lining someone up for a pre-emtive strike.
I''s a defensive guard,and a way of controlling the space/distance between you and your antagonist...to give two examples.

''its easy to hit someone when they are not expecting it try it when they are ready''

and anyone who argues that point has a very naive and blinkered idea of real world violence

In my experience I have successfully used the fence to stop fights, never had to use it to sucker punch. I even set up a fence against a coked up guy who really wanted to nail me but with just subtle movement and changes in hand position he just couldn't figure out how to get the first shot off, and then the cops showed up.

I really like the fence.

Andrew

dont forget that in addition to the above, the Fence (and the Guard which is less used and understood), its also a state of mind setting.

One thing Ive always found difficult is having a guard with the fence without making it obvious.
AL Peasland shows this on his Fence Concepts DVD which made me think there's a whole area there to work with in training.

One of the main points of the fence IS to hit someone without them expecting it.

Why on earth would anyone say otherwise especially on a self protection forum???

We're here to learn, share experiences (good and bad) so that we don't become victims of violent encounters.

If I wanted to square up to someone fairly I would jump in the ring or cage with them.

Hello?? Anyone at home?? If I have to use force on the street I do it legally first, then I make sure I am always at an advantage and I will do anything to win because you should NEVER give your opponent an opportunity to beat you.

The fence is an excellent tool to help achieve that.

Mr Nobody wrote:One of the main points of the fence IS to hit someone with them expecting it.

Why on earth would anyone say otherwise especially on a self protection forum???

We're here to learn, share experiences (good and bad) so that we don't become victims of violent encounters.
If I wanted to square up to someone fairly I would jump in the ring or cage with them.

Hello?? Anyone at home?? If I have to use force on the street I do it legally first, then I make sure I am always at an advantage and I will do anything to win because you should NEVER give your opponent an opportunity to beat you.

The fence is an excellent tool to help achieve that.

If we are here to learn thats not going to be possible unless you make a positive contribution to the learning process without insults.

DragonKi wrote:But is The Fence really classed as a sucker punch a cowards way?

Fair enough.

In answer to your above mentioned question: No, based on my first hand experiences when dealing with real world violence.

The question is a question that comes up MrNobody whenever I speak about the fence to others who train in what they think is self defence.
Its usually cage fighters and ring fighters who just dont get the fence.
Based on my conversations with peopleThe Fence on the face of it appears to be a sucker punch to someone who is not informed on the technique.
For example ''I dont want any trouble mate'' smack.
A judge is going to want to hear a pretty strong explanation why that was not a sucker punch.

To be fair all you have done is make a statement of your opinion you have not shared your knowledge.
IM not here to judge or create an argument I have also used the fence but I have never had to explain myself legally.

I can see no problem with the fence or a sucker punch, or any means when it comes to putting someones lights out (hopefully), in a street, pub, whatever situation, obviously you wouldn't do it on a nun or someone asking you to donate some change to a charity etc etc, you know when its needed, people talk about legal this and that and courts etc etc, reality dictates these thoughts are better left to the back of your mind, if at all, imo if one is not prepared to be an animal when a beating is imminent then one should stay in at the weekends and watch x factor.......Working the doors etc is a different set of rules, obviously.

True Govinda, re: best not to worry bout legal issues there & then. It's kinda easier to deal with if folks learn about the relevant law beforehand. In UK Law anyhow, self defence law is pretty solid. In fact, i'd say it's excellant for the innocent parties. It gives decent people the moral right to do whatever needs to be done. It's up to us to decide in real time what that 'need' is. Thoughm my 'percieved' need, and the legal 'actual' need can be two different things. And you will have to justify action to the CJS. Either the police, judge, or jury.

I woudln't let that deter anyone from protecting themselves. THe Criminal Justice System are very good at what they do. They are professionals. Although such things make national headlines, rarely, in my experience, do turely innocent folks go to jail. Yes, we will hear many sorry tales. Further investigation probably reveals it's more of a sour grapes issue. Perhaps someone never started the trouble, yet did go over-board. For example. It's still breaking the law. An understanding of law will protect you. It does protect us every day, but will also protect us afterwards from prosection.

Can i also say, that if someone really beleives they are within their rights it 'may' make it much easier for them to do what they need to. It's a more subtle point maybe.



Using the fence, or anything pre-emptive isn't an issue. Provided it is in context. My understanding of doing anything pre-emptive comes from (UK Law) :

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#Pre-emptive_strikes


I use a simple analogy for reasonable force, which is of course tied into pre-emptive. If i jump the queue in front of an old lady (not that i would), and she hits me with her handbag, big deal. However, if she pulls out carving knives or even knitting needles, and tries to stab me, it is a different response. Likewise, if the indications are that either me or someone else is about to be attacked, there's no point waiting for that.

A key aspect for me, is that we (victims) must not want to have a fight (ther'es a difference in 'wantiong' a fight, and 'being ready to do what it takes'. Often this is the downfall in law. A person may not start the hassle, but if they are 'up for it' their mannerisms & body language, etc, via witnesses, cctv, even physical actions, may imply something else. If there is any contrary indications to your version, the police have a duty to report the matter, and let the courts sort it out.

warmest wishes
Wayne

DragonKi wrote:But is The Fence really classed as a sucker punch a cowards way?

I personally couldnt care less if using the fence is classed as 'cowardly' or as a 'sucker punch'. If it gets the job done, and gets me home in one piece. I'm more than happy to use it. . I have no interest at all of being the hardest street fighter or next UFC champion. I simply want to be able to look after me and my family.

Dave wrote:

DragonKi wrote:But is The Fence really classed as a sucker punch a cowards way?

I personally couldnt care less if using the fence is classed as 'cowardly' or as a 'sucker punch'. If it gets the job done, and gets me home in one piece. I'm more than happy to use it. . I have no interest at all of being the hardest street fighter or next UFC champion. I simply want to be able to look after me and my family.

What he said ^^^^^^

Thanks Dave.

CPP wrote:True Govinda, re: best not to worry bout legal issues there & then. It's kinda easier to deal with if folks learn about the relevant law beforehand. In UK Law anyhow, self defence law is pretty solid. In fact, i'd say it's excellant for the innocent parties. It gives decent people the moral right to do whatever needs to be done. It's up to us to decide in real time what that 'need' is. Thoughm my 'percieved' need, and the legal 'actual' need can be two different things. And you will have to justify action to the CJS. Either the police, judge, or jury.

I woudln't let that deter anyone from protecting themselves. THe Criminal Justice System are very good at what they do. They are professionals. Although such things make national headlines, rarely, in my experience, do turely innocent folks go to jail. Yes, we will hear many sorry tales. Further investigation probably reveals it's more of a sour grapes issue. Perhaps someone never started the trouble, yet did go over-board. For example. It's still breaking the law. An understanding of law will protect you. It does protect us every day, but will also protect us afterwards from prosection.

Can i also say, that if someone really beleives they are within their rights it 'may' make it much easier for them to do what they need to. It's a more subtle point maybe.



Using the fence, or anything pre-emptive isn't an issue. Provided it is in context. My understanding of doing anything pre-emptive comes from (UK Law) :

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

I use a simple analogy for reasonable force, which is of course tied into pre-emptive. If i jump the queue in front of an old lady (not that i would), and she hits me with her handbag, big deal. However, if she pulls out carving knives or even knitting needles, and tries to stab me, it is a different response. Likewise, if the indications are that either me or someone else is about to be attacked, there's no point waiting for that.

A key aspect for me, is that we (victims) must not want to have a fight (ther'es a difference in 'wantiong' a fight, and 'being ready to do what it takes'. Often this is the downfall in law. A person may not start the hassle, but if they are 'up for it' their mannerisms & body language, etc, via witnesses, cctv, even physical actions, may imply something else. If there is any contrary indications to your version, the police have a duty to report the matter, and let the courts sort it out.

warmest wishes
Wayne

Excellent reply Wayne thank you.
One question raises for me though.
If I or anyone has trained the fence and uses it does that not make guilty through premeditated decission to take deceptive action through pretending to be submissive to gain a knockout before being attacked.
After all said and done the law can be an ass.
Or does the ''victim'' pretend to be untrained in court?
thanks.

DragonKi wrote:


If I or anyone has trained the fence and uses it does that not make guilty through premeditated decission to take deceptive action through pretending to be submissive to gain a knockout before being attacked.
After all said and done the law can be an ass.
Or does the ''victim'' pretend to be untrained in court?
thanks.

DragonKi,i've copied the above portion of your post and pasted into the "Self protection and the law" section because i thought it would be of value to hear Chris' thoughts on the matter.

Ade

DragonKi wrote:

CPP wrote:True Govinda, re: best not to worry bout legal issues there & then. It's kinda easier to deal with if folks learn about the relevant law beforehand. In UK Law anyhow, self defence law is pretty solid. In fact, i'd say it's excellant for the innocent parties. It gives decent people the moral right to do whatever needs to be done. It's up to us to decide in real time what that 'need' is. Thoughm my 'percieved' need, and the legal 'actual' need can be two different things. And you will have to justify action to the CJS. Either the police, judge, or jury.

I woudln't let that deter anyone from protecting themselves. THe Criminal Justice System are very good at what they do. They are professionals. Although such things make national headlines, rarely, in my experience, do turely innocent folks go to jail. Yes, we will hear many sorry tales. Further investigation probably reveals it's more of a sour grapes issue. Perhaps someone never started the trouble, yet did go over-board. For example. It's still breaking the law. An understanding of law will protect you. It does protect us every day, but will also protect us afterwards from prosection.

Can i also say, that if someone really beleives they are within their rights it 'may' make it much easier for them to do what they need to. It's a more subtle point maybe.



Using the fence, or anything pre-emptive isn't an issue. Provided it is in context. My understanding of doing anything pre-emptive comes from (UK Law) :

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).

I use a simple analogy for reasonable force, which is of course tied into pre-emptive. If i jump the queue in front of an old lady (not that i would), and she hits me with her handbag, big deal. However, if she pulls out carving knives or even knitting needles, and tries to stab me, it is a different response. Likewise, if the indications are that either me or someone else is about to be attacked, there's no point waiting for that.

A key aspect for me, is that we (victims) must not want to have a fight (ther'es a difference in 'wantiong' a fight, and 'being ready to do what it takes'. Often this is the downfall in law. A person may not start the hassle, but if they are 'up for it' their mannerisms & body language, etc, via witnesses, cctv, even physical actions, may imply something else. If there is any contrary indications to your version, the police have a duty to report the matter, and let the courts sort it out.

warmest wishes
Wayne

Excellent reply Wayne thank you.
One question raises for me though.
If I or anyone has trained the fence and uses it does that not make guilty through premeditated decission to take deceptive action through pretending to be submissive to gain a knockout before being attacked.
After all said and done the law can be an ass.
Or does the ''victim'' pretend to be untrained in court?
thanks.

You truly can not worry about this when it comes to protecting yourself, I mean we all know about the law and on other forums people rant and rave about it, saying you cant do this and that etc etc, but when it happens or is about to happen and your stood there thinking about the law its over for you, basically you will have enough to worry about, do what you have to and no more.........

DragonKi wrote:
If I or anyone has trained the fence and uses it does that not make guilty through premeditated decission to take deceptive action through pretending to be submissive to gain a knockout before being attacked.

The force used together with intent is what can make someone guilty. If i intend using the fence as a pre-emptive tactic, providing my force is within law, i'd feel safe. any pre-emptive strike must come form somewhere anyhow, so the intent to defend is their already. If i pretend to be submissive, and it negates the threat and i attack, ther'es a problem. if i act submissive and the threat is still there or worse, then thats less an issue.

DragonKi wrote:
After all said and done the law can be an ass.

I know this is said by a lot. it's not really true, ime. mistakes do occur, nothing is absolute. I'd only ever saw maybe one or two in over 7 actual years, that were truely innocent. The police & courts are pretty good at what they do. .

DragonKi wrote:
Or does the ''victim'' pretend to be untrained in court?
thanks.

I wouldn't say lie in the witness stand. Though giving it the 'highly trained' angle to the police/court may kinda harm a bit. Just try not to make ourselves out to be Jason Bourne. Sometimes best to act modest, while still being open. No need to give ourselves attention. Jury's can be funny. And when ordinary folks assume someone is highly trained, they can start asking questions such as 'could he not of done anything else..surely he would have been able to'. Which is naturally asked anyhow in self defence cases (by jury), but it's almost as if someone with training should be able to control any situation far better. that's the kinda judgement a jury may levy.

Chris's response in his section is more relevant. My experiences is at least 10 years old.

I've used the fence on more than one occasion.

At the tim my aim was NOT to get into a physical altercation and I was using de-escalation techniques as well.

Which is the point of the fence. It is combined with verbal de-escalation and environmental awareness so that if your soft skills don't suceed in diffusing the situation you are in a physical position to take advatantage of your opponent and dispatch him before he dispatches you should the situation dictate the need for a physical response.

And this is another point, you cannot give blanket response to whether the fence is a sucker punch or whether it is a premeditated deceptive strike. This will come down to the situation at the time, and they are ALL different, and how your intent is measured should you physically engage your attacker.

In the times that I have used the fence I didn't need to go physical at all. I believe the psychological block that the fence gives to your opponent is often enough for them to think twice about trying to get around it and the possibility of failing and losing.

I cannot speak for the law in other countries, but where I'm from (and I'm a cop), I have shaken the hand of many an assault victim because they turned the tables on their attacker and done so in a reasonable manner. Maybe the public don't believe it, but common-sense is a big part of whether the Police choose to charge someone or not.

However, every situation is different.

some great discussion points in the posts above. I agree with pretty much everything said about the legality of the preemptive strike. I'll go into more detail in the legal forum.

One thing I will add here is in regards to evidence or statements made. Police officers are looking for the guilty party and the easy win. If you act like a maniac or a wise ass or a wannabe ninjas expect them to treat you with the contempt you deserve.

That's pretty much the case during trial proceedings also. Judges don't like defendants who act like arseholes. They like clean cut, respectful, intelligent and where necessary remorseful defendants. Be the person you would find not guilty yourself. Don't lie, just present yourself and your defence correctly.