Here is a link to a story and video from The Mirror newspaper here in the UK which helps underline some commonly discussed themes here:
Essentially the video shows a consensual gang fight. This is therefore not self-defence and we defiantly see the consensual violence dynamic. What is interesting to note (from an educational self-defence perspective) is that the fight always ends quickly and badly for those on the floor because of the actions of those still standing.
There is a point where one of those standing tries to keep others away so those on the floor can fight uninterrupted, but that does not last long and the boots quickly rain down on those on the floor.
Lesson 1: The floor is not a good place to be when others can get involved.
If you read the story, you find that all of those involved were prosecuted (even those injured) because they were “street fighting” which is not the same as self-protection.
Lesson 2: Self-defence is legal. Fighting in the street is illegal.
One-on-one fighting methods don’t transpose well to environments where there is more than one person; and where the laws of the land apply as opposed to the rules of the contest.
There are “rules in the street” … we call them “laws” and there can be severe consequences for those that chose to ignore them.
Nothing new, but once again an illustration that those who think “street fighting” is “one-on-one fighting without rules” and that is the same as “self-defence” have got it woefully wrong.
All the best,