# Another Reason Why We Train



## MJS (Dec 5, 2009)

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-affidavitsreleased-120409,0,2635245.story


I saw this link on another forum, and felt it was worth posting here for discussion. The person who posted this link is also a big advocate of CCW, and rightfully so. 

Scumbags like this, IMHO, do not have any concern for the well being of their victims. Thus, the reason why I would not waste my time trying to talk my way out of something like this. In a case like this, where you're greatly outnumbered, talking is the last thing that should be done. I'm not saying that your martial arts skills are going to turn you into Superman, and maybe you will end up getting your *** kicked, but IMO, if you can't get away, and judging by the article it seems that running isn't a sure shot answer, you better be ready to fight hard, fight dirty and fight to win! This means doing anything and everything you can!


----------



## Draven (Dec 5, 2009)

Every time they show the kid being held in a rear bear hug, I keep thinking knife hand to the groin, arms up & reverse head butt from the horse stance, drop grab the ankle pick up and sit down on the knee. Why wasn't he fighting back? It was like he was in a complete state of denial.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 5, 2009)

Do nothing and get your *** kicked, or fight back and maybe get your *** kicked. Fighting back is something that is determined long before it is ever a reality. Looking back and saying I should have done this or I could have done that is too late after the fact. Train with intent, train hard, and if the time ever comes, you will be in a better position to determine the out come. The way we train is the way we will react when the chips are down.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Dec 5, 2009)

That sure looks like disparity of force to me, in Texas that means fair game!


----------



## K-man (Dec 6, 2009)

And, maybe, if you do have to go through that type of area, don't move like a victim.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 6, 2009)

K-man said:


> And, maybe, if you do have to go through that type of area, don't move like a victim.



Find a different way through the area or maybe with some friends?  There are always other options.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 6, 2009)

I'm familiar with those areas.  Cheeseman Park in Denver is a place where homosexuals congregate at night, so victims abound.  LoDo is a trendy area where wealthy young people from the suburbs party.  The 16th Street Mall is a fashionable shopping area that should be safe as houses.

Denver has had a gang problem for a long time, but it wasn't huge and it wasn't targeted at wealthy whites in the past.  There were some juvenile gang members convicted years ago of going to find local transients and homeless people and beating them to death.  I used to live on 14th / Madison, and you could hear gunshots at night.  My apartment was burglarized.  However, gang-bangers never hassled me personally.

I'm really sorry to see in the video that some people walked around the attacks and did nothing at all.  I'm also sorry that there were not more DPD in the area.  I'm also glad to hear the news actually reporting black-on-white crime.  There have been times in the past when race was only reported if the crime was white-on-black; otherwise all mention of race of the attackers or victims was left out, even if it was 'racially motivated'.  I do not intend that as a racist statement, it's just an observation from growing up in the western suburbs of Denver and knowing that there was a deep-rooted fear of saying 'black' and 'criminal' in the same sentence.  Denver really tried hard to not be racist - too hard, IMHO.

As to self-defense, I agree that this is one of many reasons why we train.  There's no reason the victims in these cases should have avoided these areas; with the exception of Cheeseman Park at night, they're supposedly perfectly safe.  Not run-down or seedy or etc.  In fact, very upscale.

I also think from that one video of the man held in the bear hug and attacked by multiple gang members that even a well-trained martial artist would have had a difficult time escaping from that situation without getting seriously hurt.  A case for CCW, for sure, though.  However, Denver is anti-gun.  The suburbs aren't so much, but Denver proper is.

Growing up in the Denver area, a lot of people in my high school had pickup trucks with rifle racks in the back windows and rifles/shotguns in them.  No problem.  Now, guns are viewed as the devil.  A product of all the Californians who moved to Denver in the 1980's, IMHO.


----------



## Guardian (Dec 6, 2009)

CCW is nice, but the bear hug negates that aspect of it right off the bat until you can break away to use it and hopefully they won't find that you have a weapon and all gang up on you to get it, remember, they are doing this as an upward move in the gangs, they have numbers, they find you have a weapon, they outnumber you, it's gang up time more then likely.

Fight like there is no  tomorrow.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 6, 2009)

Guardian said:


> CCW is nice, but the bear hug negates that aspect of it right off the bat until you can break away to use it and hopefully they won't find that you have a weapon and all gang up on you to get it, remember, they are doing this as an upward move in the gangs, they have numbers, they find you have a weapon, they outnumber you, it's gang up time more then likely.
> 
> Fight like there is no  tomorrow.



I'm not going to armchair-quarterback the victim's choices, but note that the man putting the bear hug on him basically did it in slow motion.  The victim appeared to choose not to respond as it was happening - we don't know what happened previously, perhaps he had already been assaulted and was dazed & confused.  However, the assailants were many; I do not know how anyone could reasonably expect to fight their way out of that unarmed.


----------



## TKDHomeSchooler (Dec 6, 2009)

Guardian said:


> CCW is nice, but the bear hug negates that aspect of it right off the bat until you can break away to use it and hopefully they won't find that you have a weapon and all gang up on you to get it, remember, they are doing this as an upward move in the gangs, they have numbers, they find you have a weapon, they outnumber you, it's gang up time more then likely.
> 
> Fight like there is no  tomorrow.



When you are getting surrounded like this guy did, you know something is about to happen.  This guy let the 3 on 1 factor cloud common sense.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Dec 6, 2009)

It upsets me, too, that people walked past and did nothing. To me, the shame of doing nothing would be worse than getting beat up. I'm a woman and just a beginner MA but I would have stopped and said something, or at least called the cops on my cell phone.


----------



## MattNinjaZX-14 (Dec 6, 2009)

That is sick. I hope they get the electric chair. Gangs should be considered as using deadly force and weapons in large numbers.  

The " weapons " being human mass in large numbers.

There was a good reason why in the 19th century black people were not allowed to congregate in large numbers. This is exactly why.

I am no raicst here like Bill Mattocks said. " I do not intend that as a racist statement, it's just an observation from growing up in the western suburbs of Denver and knowing that there was a deep-rooted fear of saying 'black' and 'criminal' in the same sentence. Denver really tried hard to not be racist - too hard, IMHO. "

I hope you get it. Time to take back America from the street gangs IMHO.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-affidavitsreleased-120409,0,2635245.story
> 
> 
> I saw this link on another forum, and felt it was worth posting here for discussion. The person who posted this link is also a big advocate of CCW, and rightfully so.
> ...


 
You better be willing to seriously injure and kill. 

If you're greatly outnumbered and have no escape then your first strike better count; sword hands to throats, kicks to knees, etc...

You can't just count on simple punches and kicks in these scenarios. Being outnumbered is no different than an opponent using deadly force (gun, knife, ect) 

If you only rely on general martial arts you're probably going to get overwhelmed and the guy you punched is just going to beat you that much harder for it. So, you better make sure he doesn't get back up. 

Hopefully your pure aggression and disregard for their bodies will result in "shock & awe" and perhaps provide you with an opportunity to escape. 

You have to be nasty if you want to survive. IMHO


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

Draven said:


> Every time they show the kid being held in a rear bear hug, I keep thinking knife hand to the groin, arms up & reverse head butt from the horse stance, drop grab the ankle pick up and sit down on the knee. Why wasn't he fighting back? It was like he was in a complete state of denial.


 
I havent seen the entire clip yet, but looking at the still shot, I was wondering the same thing...why was he just standing there, doing nothing?  Its not like there were no options.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Do nothing and get your *** kicked, or fight back and maybe get your *** kicked. Fighting back is something that is determined long before it is ever a reality. Looking back and saying I should have done this or I could have done that is too late after the fact. Train with intent, train hard, and if the time ever comes, you will be in a better position to determine the out come. The way we train is the way we will react when the chips are down.


 
Couldn't agree more.  This is another reason why I like scenario and spontaneous reaction drills, as well as working with multiples.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm familiar with those areas. Cheeseman Park in Denver is a place where homosexuals congregate at night, so victims abound. LoDo is a trendy area where wealthy young people from the suburbs party. The 16th Street Mall is a fashionable shopping area that should be safe as houses.
> 
> Denver has had a gang problem for a long time, but it wasn't huge and it wasn't targeted at wealthy whites in the past. There were some juvenile gang members convicted years ago of going to find local transients and homeless people and beating them to death. I used to live on 14th / Madison, and you could hear gunshots at night. My apartment was burglarized. However, gang-bangers never hassled me personally.


 
Its sad the way neighborhoods change over time.  As far as the beatings go....thats sad too.  There've been many reports on things like this happening.  A homeless person gets the crap beat out of them...all for kicks.  Disgusting.



> I'm really sorry to see in the video that some people walked around the attacks and did nothing at all. I'm also sorry that there were not more DPD in the area. I'm also glad to hear the news actually reporting black-on-white crime. There have been times in the past when race was only reported if the crime was white-on-black; otherwise all mention of race of the attackers or victims was left out, even if it was 'racially motivated'. I do not intend that as a racist statement, it's just an observation from growing up in the western suburbs of Denver and knowing that there was a deep-rooted fear of saying 'black' and 'criminal' in the same sentence. Denver really tried hard to not be racist - too hard, IMHO.


 
Agreed, and I chalk that up to fear.  People are afraid to call the police out of fear that they'll be the next target.  So they turn a blind eye.  Its a shame people have to live in fear because of punks.



> As to self-defense, I agree that this is one of many reasons why we train. There's no reason the victims in these cases should have avoided these areas; with the exception of Cheeseman Park at night, they're supposedly perfectly safe. Not run-down or seedy or etc. In fact, very upscale.


 
Agreed.



> I also think from that one video of the man held in the bear hug and attacked by multiple gang members that even a well-trained martial artist would have had a difficult time escaping from that situation without getting seriously hurt. A case for CCW, for sure, though. However, Denver is anti-gun. The suburbs aren't so much, but Denver proper is.


 
Agreed.  I've said many times that while our training should give us the edge, it wont make us invincible.  This is why I said in my OP, as well as other times in various posts, that we, when faced with something like this, should fight with all we have.  I guess if the area is anti gun, then picking up any other improvised weapon would be your next option.  



> Growing up in the Denver area, a lot of people in my high school had pickup trucks with rifle racks in the back windows and rifles/shotguns in them. No problem. Now, guns are viewed as the devil. A product of all the Californians who moved to Denver in the 1980's, IMHO.


 
Funny you should say that.  The person who originally posted the link on the other forum, used to live in CA.  He's since moved to AZ, where the gun laws are much more relaxed.


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

Guardian said:


> CCW is nice, but the bear hug negates that aspect of it right off the bat until you can break away to use it and hopefully they won't find that you have a weapon and all gang up on you to get it, remember, they are doing this as an upward move in the gangs, they have numbers, they find you have a weapon, they outnumber you, it's gang up time more then likely.
> 
> Fight like there is no tomorrow.


 
Unless this was a surprise attack, hopefully if you were able to see what was about to happen, and I was carrying, I'd start prepping myself.  But I agree...if they see the weapon, getting it is probably going to be their priority.


----------



## Krevon (Dec 6, 2009)

*deleted*


----------



## MJS (Dec 6, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> You better be willing to seriously injure and kill.
> 
> If you're greatly outnumbered and have no escape then your first strike better count; sword hands to throats, kicks to knees, etc...
> 
> ...


 
Agreed, and this is why I said this in my OP:

"you better be ready to fight hard, fight dirty and fight to win! This means doing anything and everything you can!"

They already upped the stakes, with them outnumbering the victim, so IMO, all bets are off now.  I know in other topics, especially ones that're talking about using weapons, people often say, "Would you really be able to pick up that knife, and drive it through flesh?"  Ya know what...the thought of it, in the relaxed state, is sickening.  However, if its them, or me, my wife, my family, etc., Im not going down without a fight.  I guess I'll have to live with the results afterwards.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 6, 2009)

The video demonstrates why, even if you are an expert shot, fast on the draw, a wizard with the gun, if you mess up and get taken from behind you need other skills. Skills that like shooting take time and effort to learn and ingrain.

You can be suckered by one in front while the other, acting like they don't know the actor in front of you, walks by and grabs you from behind (something in SouthNarcs class we practiced on with FIST gear and simulation guns.)

Deaf


----------



## Flea (Dec 6, 2009)

My young cousin was getting sucked into the gang scene in Denver, and managed to pull his head out of his butt before turning 18.  He served a couple years on probation after being charged for something (I don't know what) as a juvenile.  The whole family is phenomenally relieved to see him walk out of that, apparently just in time.  I _really_ don't think he'd be capable of that kind of violence, but the herd mentality can do peculiar things to people.  I hope the suspects can find some kind of wisdom wherever their path takes them next.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Dec 6, 2009)

MattNinjaZX-14 said:


> There was a good reason why in the 19th century black people were not allowed to congregate in large numbers. This is exactly why.
> 
> I am no raicst here like Bill Mattocks said. " I do not intend that as a racist statement...


 
No, the reason that black people were not allowed to congregate in large numbers was so they could not 1) teach each other to read and 2) foment rebellion, ie. run away.

Just saying "I do not intend that as a racist statement" doesn't clear you of being historical revisionist and a bigot.

That is just my 2 cents on your comment.


----------



## still learning (Dec 7, 2009)

Hello,  Our society and laws....NOT yet perfected...man is not perfect and therefore we will have inperfect laws...

NO one wants to get hurt...therefore staying out and NOT helping protects you as an individual...if you step in and get killed? ....who will take care of your family?

Yet? ...We must help others that needs help!   ....Laws are on the side of the bad guys first....if we use excess force? ..we become a BAD guy!

911 is the best way....?   cameras...good idea to take lots of pictures too...

Aloha,

Crimes is allow to grow..because of the laws...protects the wrong people...

In states that allows one to carry a firearm?  ...less serious crimes happens...


----------



## Draven (Dec 7, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> No, the reason that black people were not allowed to congregate in large numbers was so they could not 1) teach each other to read and 2) foment rebellion, ie. run away.
> 
> Just saying "I do not intend that as a racist statement" doesn't clear you of being historical revisionist and a bigot.
> 
> That is just my 2 cents on your comment.


 
Nor does it make him wrong. I'm not racist by any means but I see certain trends which reflect trends in say the Balkans, Ireland pre independance & currently in Northern Ireland. Everyone makes a big deal about the racist White-People but what about the Racist Black-People or Racist Latinos.

Take the New Black Panther Party; they have directers who work closely with Shapton & other who stage civil rights activist parades, yet openly preach "Killing Crackers." 

Fact is, we have been force fed the "poor black folk history" that was used as a pretext for the Civil War & is very different from actual motivations and reasons. The slaves in the North were not freed and yes the North had slaves until years later. We are fed the history of "winners" & winners always write history. Which gets to the point that several Black Slaves did stage rebels and kill white people & slave owners when they ran away. 

If we look at American history we'll see that various native tribes were not allowed to congrigate enmass either, for that reason of rebellion. The same was true of the Irish who came here as indentured servants (a politically correct term for slave). The reason why was because since your going to be hunted down anyway, you had nothing to lose by taking an added risk & if you could kill a few of the people who would be looking for you no one will notice your gone until later & give you a head start.

Now to modern politics; you have a great deal of Americans who consider themselves American's second in nature & African, Chinese, Korean oe what have first. However, we have a deep set Racial Violence directed from Blacks against Whites & its justified by the term "Civil Rights."

Look at Menace Clan's 1995 Album. Look at the NatGeo documentary on the NBPP and the director screaming "Kill Crackers" & "Break in their homes & kill their Babies." Fact is we allowed a subculture of racism to grow in this country by trying to rid ourselves of racism. We have allowed people like Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton to express & push for Socialist-Philosophy and militant activism under the term "Civil Rights." All in the name of the "You're entitled to because..." & "You have to fight this group because they are taking it from" politics.

I have several friends who are literally scared because they aren't "black enough" for such extremists and these extremists almost exclusively recruit from inside jails and prisons. To someone indocturinated into such a philosophy any mention of "race" seems like racism. To anyone looking at history and human nature we are a tribal mind species there for think in terms of race & racism. It is an instinctual element of the human condition and something we have & need to deal with. Being racially/tribally minded doesn't have to mean "hatred" but it does mean "instinctive bias."

Also I'm not racist I'm a prick who hates the human race it its many forms, colors, creeds and ideologies because we keep proving ourselves emotionally driven primates without any form of understanding.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Dec 7, 2009)

Draven said:


> Nor does it make him wrong. I'm not racist by any means but I see certain trends which reflect trends in say the Balkans, Ireland pre independance & currently in Northern Ireland. Everyone makes a big deal about the racist White-People but what about the Racist Black-People or Racist Latinos.
> 
> Take the New Black Panther Party; they have directers who work closely with Shapton & other who stage civil rights activist parades, yet openly preach "Killing Crackers."
> 
> ...


 
I take your point. I agree that racism is present at every level of society, and especially at lower socio-economic levels. This includes white hatred of blacks and hispanics, hispanic hatred of blacks and whites, asian hatred of blacks and hispanics, etc. etc. ad nauseum. But his argument was that American blacks were not allowed to congregate during the 19th century to prevent them from attacking whites. In reality, this law was *one of many* designed to keep one people in subjugation to another. You yourself bring up other examples of this strategy used throughout history. His mention of that law also implied that it was a good thing, and maybe we should bring it back (although he didn't explicitly say that and perhaps I am reading too much into it).


----------



## Stuey (Dec 8, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> No, the reason that black people were not allowed to congregate in large numbers was so they could not 1) teach each other to read and 2) foment rebellion, ie. run away.
> 
> Just saying "I do not intend that as a racist statement" doesn't clear you of being historical revisionist and a bigot.
> 
> That is just my 2 cents on your comment.


 
+1
@*MattNinjaZX-14* 
Saying a race of people should not congregate to avoid such instances is absurd. Punsih the criminals, not the race they belong to. Is that in itself not racist? To assume that all of a race behaves in a certain way? Guess what, we all belong to the same race: the human race. 
Each of us may have different reasons for believing what we do about race, but not one of us is singularly correct because there are so many variables in each of our experiences. Let the racist ones be the criminals, not those judging the criminals. 
I am ashamed of some of the things that my race of people have done to others. If I were to be judged by their standards I would think that extremely unfair. 
We are all adults and people believe all sorts of weird and wonderful things. That in mind dont make racist comments and claim that they are not. I can handle it if I share the forum with people who have alternative beliefs which go against my own beliefs.


----------



## Draven (Dec 8, 2009)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> I take your point. I agree that racism is present at every level of society, and especially at lower socio-economic levels. This includes white hatred of blacks and hispanics, hispanic hatred of blacks and whites, asian hatred of blacks and hispanics, etc. etc. ad nauseum. But his argument was that American blacks were not allowed to congregate during the 19th century to prevent them from attacking whites. In reality, this law was *one of many* designed to keep one people in subjugation to another. You yourself bring up other examples of this strategy used throughout history. His mention of that law also implied that it was a good thing, and maybe we should bring it back (although he didn't explicitly say that and perhaps I am reading too much into it).


 
True, but what I'm saying is that he might be right its not a bad idea. I'm not for advocating it against any racial group but all racial groups. A local mall here is a popular hand out for teenagers and we have 4 gangs here so security guards at the mall do not allow teenagers to get together in groups of 3 or more in the mall, they can walk in large groups but not just hang out as that has resulted in many fights, drug sales and gang activity.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Dec 9, 2009)

Draven said:


> True, but what I'm saying is that he might be right its not a bad idea. I'm not for advocating it against any racial group but all racial groups. A local mall here is a popular hand out for teenagers and we have 4 gangs here so security guards at the mall do not allow teenagers to get together in groups of 3 or more in the mall, they can walk in large groups but not just hang out as that has resulted in many fights, drug sales and gang activity.


 
So according to you, this is a good idea. All people, of all races, should be expressly forbidden to congregate, in case they are thinking about causing trouble. This, of course, would mean that I can't train in kenpo at my dojo, you can't go to church or to work, Congress can't assemble...you must admit that this is patently absurd.

 Although it is not expressly protected in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, in _NAACP v. Alabama_, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), freedom of association to be a fundamental right protected by it.

We live in a free society, or one that is intended to be free. With freedom comes fear. Fear of what someone else may do to you with their freedom to act. I would rather live in a free society and deal with the threat of death than to live in a tyranny and deal with the certainty of oppression.


----------

