# self-Defense and the Law



## Doc (Nov 20, 2005)

Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist
by Peter Hobart, Esq.

Introduction

Anthony Ervin was a career criminal. He was arrested eight times on assorted robbery, weapons, and assault charges between 1987 and 1996. On October 8, 1996, he acosted Courtney Beswick, a blind man who must have seemed like an easy target. After Ervins demands for money were repeatedly refused, he attacked Beswick. Beswick, a long time practitioner of martial arts, threw his assailant over his shoulder, onto the pavement. The fall broke Ervins neck, and he subsequently died.

Having survived this terrifying ordeal, Beswick still faced the possibility of criminal and civil charges. In this case, however, the police and estate of the deceased decided not to file charges against Beswick, since he clearly acted in self-defense.

But this outcome is hardly the rule in the United States. In fact, a recent law review article indicates that a disturbing trend toward targeting martial arts practitioners is emerging in the field of tort law.

With this in mind, it seems that the modern martial artist must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the applicable law if he ever hopes, or fears, that his training may be called upon outside the dôjô.

In an effort to provide some practical answers, this article will address the national majority position, and any substantial minority positions regarding criminal and civil liability with respect to the use of force in defense of self, defense of others, and defense of property. Pennsylvania law, where relevant, will also be examined. The majority position reflects the practice of most states, and is increasingly consistent with the Model Penal Code (MPC). Pennsylvania law regarding these issues is largely based on the MPC.

The author regrets the ubiquity of the terms "reasonable" and "generally" in this article  that these terms are essential merely reflects the complexity, and often the vagueness, of the law.

Case law varies widely among jurisdictions, and is constantly modifying and reinterpreting the rules of law. In an effort to provide some concrete conclusions, a lsit of relatively unqualified guidelines is provided at the end.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Self-defense, non-lethal force:

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is reasonable belief, unlawful, about to and necessary and proportionate.

In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendants state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.

The reasonableness of the defendants actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendants position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendants (and the assailants) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.

There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an assailant, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.

About to refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, Ill punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.

The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying I am about to shoot you might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailants weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attackers special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. Retreat to the wall is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from ones own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend ones self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression suddenly escalates the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Third parties:

The right to defense of others turns largely on the reasonableness of the belief that the victim deserved assistance. A minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuer be a member of the victims family, or the victims superior or employee. Similarly, a minority of jurisdictions require that the rescuers belief be correct, reasoning that the rescuer merely steps into the victims shoes, while the majority requires only that it be reasonable. Pennsylvania law imposes no such restrictions. It does, however, require the additional showing that the rescuer believed that his intervention was necessary, and that the rescuer retreats if the victim would be required to do so.

If in the course of intentionally defending himself or another, a defendant recklessly or negligently injures or kills a third person, self-defense will not bar liability, but it will reduce the gravity of the charge from an intentional crime to a reckless or negligent crime.

Defense of Property:

In Pennsylvania, and a majority of jurisdictions, a victim has the right to use non-deadly force in defense of his dwelling when, and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate anothers unlawful entry or attack upon his dwelling. Deadly force is authorized when violent entry is made or attempted and the victim reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent an attack on his person. It is also authorized when the victim reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent entry into the dwelling by one who intends to commit a felony therein. The rationale for allowing self-defense in these scenarios is based upon the right of inhabitants to be secure in their homes, rather than the right to defend property, as can be demonstrated by the law regarding defense of uninhabited property.

Non-deadly force may be used merely to defend ones property from imminent, unlawful interference. Force may not be used if some other, reasonable means would have the same effect.. The only exception to the immediacy requirement is that force may be used to regain wrongfully taken property after the taking (i.e. no longer a prevention of immediate interference) if the victim uses such force in immediate pursuit. The legal rationale for this exception is, of course, that the interference continues as long as the aggressor retains control of the property.

Deadly force may never be used in defense of uninhabited property. The popular misconception with respect to this law emanates from confusion over situations where the right to defend property and the right to defend persons therein overlap. Pennsylvania allows the use of reasonable, non-lethal force in the protection of property and notes that such a defense of property will not be regarded as provoking an attack on the defenders person. Pennsylvania allows the use of force necessary to eject a trespasser, short of inflicting serious bodily injury. If the defendant reasonably believes that the trespasser intended to commit a felony, then serious bodily injury is justified. When two people claim ownership over a piece of personal property, Pennsylvania law provides that force may not be used to prevent one from taking it.

Use of force to prevent crime:

A citizen has a privilege to use non-deadly force which reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony, riot or other serious breach of the peace, and some states (such as California) have extended this privilege to the prevention of any crime. Deadly force may be used only to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony, involving a risk of human life. A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime. A private citizen may also use deadly force to effect an arrest, provided the alleged criminal is actually guilty. Here, a reasonable belief is not enough.

Pennsylvania phrases this provision differently. A private citizen is justified in using the same amount of force as if he were directed to prevent the crime by a peace officer, except that lethal force may not be used unless the defendant reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another. At the direction of a peace officer, a private citizen need not retreat from making a lawful arrest, and may use any force he believes necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.

CIVIL LIABILITY

In a civil case, it is the victim (or his estate) bringing the action. While there are many similarities to a criminal charge, it is important to understand that the civil plaintiff must only prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a much lighter burden than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The principal tort actions which a victim who defends himself might face, include battery, assault and wrongful death.

Battery and assault:

In virtually every jurisdiction (including Pennsylvania), to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the aggressor made harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiffs person, that the aggressor intended to bring about such contact, and that the aggressors actions in fact caused the contact. While harmful contact is easily determined from the specifics of the situation, offensive contact is judged by the objective, reasonable person standard. As a prominent Philadelphia law professor explains, "tapping a person on the shoulder is not reasonably offensive whereas, tapping someone considerably lower would be." Plaintiffs person means in general anything connected to the plaintiffs body. This would include a hat, a cup in plaintiffs hand, and on a recent bar exam, even the car in which the plaintiff was sitting! Thus, snatching a book from a person might well constitute a battery.

The causation requirement can also be deceptive. Not only would a thrown projectile which strikes the plaintiff constitute a battery, but ducking to avoid such a projectile, and hitting ones head would also be actionable. Moreover, no actual damage need occur to bring an action for battery. The offensiveness of a non-harmful contact will support an award of nominal damages.

Assault, briefly, is the creation of a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, in the victim. Simple fear is not enough. The aggressor must have a present apparent ability to bring about such contact. In other words, the victim must actually expect to be struck or touched. Conversely, the fact that the victim was not in the least bit afraid does not bar recovery. Thus, a professional boxer may successfully sue a weakling for assault, even though there was no actual danger of being hurt.

Words are generally not enough to support an action for assault, but words coupled with some act may be. For example, shaking ones fist and threatening with words might well constitute assault. Similarly, a conditional threat such as your money or your life is also sufficient to support a charge of assault. Like battery, no actual damage need result.

Wrongful death and survivor acts:

Although traditionally any tort action abated at the death of the victim or the perpetrator, most states have now enacted survival acts for wrongful death (it is from this old common law rule that the concept of escaping liability by killing, rather than injuring a victim, derived). Now the estate of the deceased may bring an action against the killer for all damages which occurred between the commission of the tort, and death (e.g. pain and suffering).

Further, every state has now enacted a statute providing for a civil remedy for wrongful death. Here, the a designated representative sues for the pecuniary injury to the next of kin (lost wages, lost companionship). While the wrongful death action is quite complicated, the critical aspect for present purposes is that the same defenses against the plaintiff apply as if the victim himself were suing.

Self-defense in tort law:

While the principles of self-defense at tort law are similar to those at criminal law, the mode of analysis, and areas of emphasis differ. In general, self-defense is valid when a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is about to be attacked. Under these circumstances, he may only use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against the potential injury. Since only reasonable ground are required, a genuine mistake with respect to the attack will still support the right to self-defense. Once the attack or tort has ended, so does the right to self-defense. Retaliation is never permitted.

As at criminal law, there is generally no duty to retreat, and deadly force may be used to prevent death or serious bodily harm. Even in the minority jurisdictions which require retreat (like Pennsylvania), there is an exception to the requirement if the victim is in his home. Although the attacker has no right to self defense, if the attack is non-deadly, and the victim responds with deadly force, the aggressor may defend himself with deadly force.

Third parties:

Under tort principles, a victim who accidentally injures a third-party in the course of defending himself is also protected from suit by that third party. A majority of jurisdictions also allow the defense of victims only if the victims themselves have a right to self-defense. Thus, if the rescuer makes a mistake regarding the victims right to self-defense, he too will be liable. However, there is a strong modern trend toward protecting rescuers from suit if their wrongful assistance of a victim is based on a reasonable mistake (Pennsylvania tort law allows for a reasonable mistake). The rescuer may use as much force as the victim could have used in self-defense.

Defense of property:

In the defense of property, a request to desist prior to the use of force is required, unless it would be futile or dangerous. There is almost never a right to self defense when the intruder in fact has a right to be on the property. Thus, it is unwise to attack a supposed intruder without ascertaining his identity first! A significant exception occurs when the intruder contributes to the ambiguity regarding his identity or purpose.

As at criminal law, there is a right to use force in the recovery of stolen property, as long as the victim is in hot pursuit of the taker. Also as under the criminal standard, deadly force may never be used simply to defend property. Finally, the right to trespass for necessity supersedes the right to self-defense. Thus, a home-owner is not privileged to use force to turn away those who need refuge from an emergency.

Prevention of crime:

Since the right to use force is limited to the prevention of the commission of a tort in civil actions, one who subdues an attacker and then continues to use force to hold him until the police arrive, must be aware that he has moved over from a tort privilege, to the privilege of arrest under criminal law.

Martial arts teachers liability:

Under the Theory of Agency, the principal is liable for unlawful acts which he causes to be done through an agent. There are three possible ways in which a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents. First, if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct. Similarly, an instructor who continues to teach a student who has abused his knowledge may be held responsible, if not liable, for subsequent torts.

Second, an instructor may be held liable for having entrusted a student with an extremely dangerous instrumentality. "[W]hen an instrumentality passes from the control of a person, his responsibility for injuries inflicted by it ceases. However, when an injury is caused by an exceptionally dangerous instrumentality, or one which may be dangerous if improperly used, a former owner or possessor may ... be charged with responsibility for [its] use...." The implications for instructors who teach potentially lethal techniques is clear.

Finally, an instructor may be liable for harm to the student or other parties as a result of negligent instruction. Anyone who holds himself out as an expert capable of giving instruction is expected to conform to the standards of his professional community. Thus, any instructor who, by his own negligence, fails to provide, teach and require adequate safe-guards and supervision, may be liable for any resulting injury.

CONCLUSION

The law, and the facts underlying a cause of action are rarely clear-cut. Statutes and case law vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Lawyers are skilled at recasting the facts in their clients best interest. Juries are given broad discretion with respect to determining guilt or innocence, and may feel the need to compensate an injured party regardless of fault. And even if a defendant successfully raises one of the defenses discussed above, litigation is costly both in terms of time and money.

It would be foolish to try to rely on a general understanding of the legal principles at work in these situations, in order to engage in behavior which falls just within the realm of legality. Rather, the wise martial artist will attempt to avoid any hint of liability or criminal conduct. The following general principles may be of value in this endeavor.

 Avoid physical confrontation. If there is a safe avenue of retreat, use it (regardless of jurisdiction). At a minimum, retreat to the wall.

 If confrontation is inevitable, give a warning when defending property, unless doing so would be dangerous or futile (which is often the case). This does not mean that you should list your qualifications, as the samurai of old were wont to do. Rather, you should simply give the aggressor notice that you intend to use force against him, in order to allow him to reconsider his position.

 Ensure that you are not seen as the aggressor. This does not require taking the first hit, but it does require being certain that physical contact is imminent prior to reacting (for an in-depth examination of the danger here, see the Goetz case).

 Be aware of the aggravating and mitigating factors. Is there a size, age, or ability differential? Are you or the attacker armed or trained? All of these factors will help you determine the appropriate level of force.

 Use only the amount of force necessary to deter the attack. This does not require the use of ineffective technique, but rather mature reflection prior to a confrontation about what technique (including flight) is appropriate in which situation. It would be wise to introduce this as part of training.

 Once the initial threat is neutralized, stop. This does not mean that you must give your opponent a fighting chance. Rather, you may immobilize the attacker while awaiting the police, but do no further damage.

 When intervening on behalf of a third party, ensure (as much as possible) that the intervention is justified and necessary. As a rule, interference in domestic disputes is unwise. Reconciliations can mean trouble for the would-be rescuer.

 Remember that, in this country, human rights are superior to property rights. The use of force in the protection of property is very risky.

 As an instructor, you are both morally and legally responsible for the actions of your students, both inside and out of the dojo.

As an instructor, you should know the law at least to the extent of whether your state is in the majority or the minority with respect to the issues raised above. If you do not have a lawyer or law student in your dojo, any law school library will have a copy of: Your State Statutes Annotated
*


----------



## carmstrong (Nov 20, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> ...a martial arts instructor might be held liable as the principal for the unlawful acts of his students, as agents...if the instructor appears to ratify or approve of unlawful conduct, he may be held liable for the commission of such acts. Thus, a dojo which encourages the use of excessive force, or lethal force in inappropriate situations may be seen to ratify and approve of unlawful conduct.
> *


Wow, I'd never heard of that. It would seem that that could have implications for Kenpo instructors who teach eye-gouges, throat-chops and neck-breaks as responses to a to a punch or grab.

Chris


----------



## Doc (Nov 20, 2005)

carmstrong said:
			
		

> Wow, I'd never heard of that. It would seem that that could have implications for Kenpo instructors who teach eye-gouges, throat-chops and neck-breaks as responses to a to a punch or grab.
> 
> Chris


Something Mr. Parker and I discussed decades ago, and in an effort to put together our material eliminated such tactics. The problem is they must be replaced with significant and effective, labor intensive to teach, skills. Our law enforcement project mandated these things be eliminated in general from the curriculum.

Keep in mind that Ed Parker did not regularly teach in any school from the mid-sixties on, and when he did, he spoke of concepts, principles, and never endorsed any specific technique that advocted these things. When asked how a technique should be done, he always said, "How do you do it?" If you were happy with a technique he would say, "You could do it that way." He NEVER committed to any endorsement of these tactics that are part and parcel of the commercial aspect of his motion based kenpo vehicle.


----------



## CrankyDragon (Nov 20, 2005)

I dont think its the tactics that need to be changed, but the law.  The criminal has ever more privledges and protection under the law than does a law-abiding peaceful citizen.  This is totally wrong.  Totally.

Andrew


----------



## IWishToLearn (Nov 21, 2005)

Hey Dr Chapel, can I copy that for my own reference?


----------



## Doc (Nov 21, 2005)

IWishToLearn said:
			
		

> Hey Dr Chapel, can I copy that for my own reference?


Absolutely. It is open source info.


----------



## sandan (Dec 13, 2005)

Excellent thread!!  It is very difficult as a martial artist to determine when and when not to use the skills that have been developed.  The jury is really the group that needs to be convinced that the martial artist responded to a situation as a reasonable person would and just how much force would reciprocate the intentions of the attacker.  We had one of the top attorneys in our city take his black belt test, and his project was exactly this topic and he touched on a lot of the points brought up here.  It was amazing how restricted martial artists are...it almost seemed like we would need need to sign a contract with the assailant for permission to defend ourselves.  This "reason" thing is so difficult to gauge, because each jury is different.  One of the best responses I've ever heard to the age old question that every martial artist has been asked "have you ever had to use martial arts?" is "well, no one's ever tried to kill me yet."  I agree with a lot of the posters here that this self defense thing is ridiculous, the letter of the law is greater than the spirit of the law.


----------



## still learning (Dec 13, 2005)

Hello, All laws are made by man and can be change by man!

All laws do not have to fair or right to common sense. (again laws are written by man)

Use the law to your advantage is all you can do!  The way it is written by man.

Your religion (beliefs) has nothing to do with laws also. What you believe to be right maybe in conflict with the laws of man.

Yes it is sometimes unfair.....what can we do?   .....get the laws change?

The more people we live with the more laws we will need.

If you are the only one left on earth....than you can make all the laws the way you want it to be.

First law should be no talking to one self?....................Aloha


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 13, 2005)

carmstrong said:
			
		

> Wow, I'd never heard of that. It would seem that that could have implications for Kenpo instructors who teach eye-gouges, throat-chops and neck-breaks as responses to a to a punch or grab.
> 
> Chris


 
Maybe you just need to make sure you can really really justify your actions.  That is a very nebulous position to be in, but I think the extreme and lethal techniques continue to have a place in training.  Just understand that they are not toys to be played with.  Most punches and grabs do not justify an eye-gouge or neck break.  But if that punch or grab is in the context of a more serious situation, perhaps the beginnings of a rape or kidnaping, or a gun or knife has surfaced, perhaps it would be an appropriate response.

When you have learned techniques that are extreme, you can always pull back and apply them to a less extreme level, if appropriate.


----------



## carmstrong (Dec 17, 2005)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Maybe you just need to make sure you can really really justify your actions. That is a very nebulous position to be in, but I think the extreme and lethal techniques continue to have a place in training. Just understand that they are not toys to be played with. Most punches and grabs do not justify an eye-gouge or neck break. But if that punch or grab is in the context of a more serious situation, perhaps the beginnings of a rape or kidnaping, or a gun or knife has surfaced, perhaps it would be an appropriate response.
> 
> When you have learned techniques that are extreme, you can always pull back and apply them to a less extreme level, if appropriate.


I agree that there are situations wherein extreme techniques can be justified, but, in Kenpo classes/seminars, I can't remember any discussions about when/if these things should be used. It's usually just: Ok, the bad guy throws a punch at you and here's where the eye-poke goes and here's where you chop him in the throat, etc. 

I wish Kenpo teachers would talk about ethical/legal/practical parameters like you alluded to above, but I haven't seen it.

Chris


----------



## DavidCC (Dec 22, 2005)

My first teacher used to tell us to repeat, as many times as necessary, "I don't want to fight you" while vicously applying kempo techniques   I don;t think he was being completely serious, but it did make apoint.


----------



## Doc (Dec 22, 2005)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> My first teacher used to tell us to repeat, as many times as necessary, "I don't want to fight you" while vicously applying kempo techniques   I don;t think he was being completely serious, but it did make apoint.


The funny thing is, this is the perspective I was always taught by Parker. We actually have no techniques with eye gouges at all. Mr. Parker's thoughts were simple: "You don't need training to do that stuff. The skill comes in not doing it."


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2005)

Doc said:
			
		

> The funny thing is, this is the perspective I was always taught by Parker. We actually have no techniques with eye gouges at all. Mr. Parker's thoughts were simple: "You don't need training to do that stuff. The skill comes in not doing it."


 
That's a great quote. I love it.

I saw a Kenpo demonstration in college. The instructor was actually advocating gouging a person's eyes after he had been knocked to the ground, _even if he was no longer able to fight_, because it was essential to do the whole technique every time, and this was part of the technique. I was dumbfounded.


----------



## teej (Dec 23, 2005)

I was taught and I teach my students this statement,

"With the knowledge comes the responsiblity for your actions".

Teej


----------



## jdinca (Dec 23, 2005)

It all boils down to "justified" and "proportional" and both are open to interpretation. I have a liability umbrella policy pretty much for this situation.

When it comes to teaching, IMO it's really important to repeatedly emphasize that the only time it's okay to use the more damaging moves (eye gouges, throat punches) is when you feel your life, or someone elses life is in danger. At our school we try and emphasize that that's the ONLY time it's okay to use martial arts and in any other situation, try to avoid it in the first place or get out of it without physical confrontation. If you can't do that, be quick, brutal and efficient but make sure your response is proportional to the attack.

It seems there comes a point in training where the mind set needs to be that you CAN'T use martial arts unless your life is in danger.


----------



## teej (Dec 23, 2005)

> It seems there comes a point in training where the mind set needs to be that you CAN'T use martial arts unless your life is in danger


.

Exactly! This is not all about eye gouges or throat chops, but responsiblity. If like the old school yard joke, you walk behind someone and kick their leg out and they fall hitting their head, you are responsible. No special training required.

I recall an incident about 15 yrs ago, where a Tae Kwon Do blk blt cold cocked a guy in a dance club with a heel palm to the guys chin. [the guy had said something to the blk blts friend. nothing was said to the blk blt] So as this guy left his fiance' and walked to the rest room, the blk blt walked up, spun this guy around and heel palmed him in the face. The guy dropped striking his head on the dance floor and died. The blk blt was tried and convicted of manslaughter. 

Interesting, this blk blts brother was also a tae kwon do blk blt and several years later while working loss prevention I apprehended the brother for retail theft. I found out his brother got out of jail in a couple of years.

It did not take blk blt training to heel palm someone and kill this guy even if he did not mean to kill him. He made a wrong choice and was responsible. With all the soldiers we have currently being trained to kill AND seeing active combat now, I wonder if our countries assualt and murder rate will increase.

It all comes down controling your temper and being a responsible individual. "Responsible for you actions"
Teej


----------



## jdinca (Dec 23, 2005)

teej said:
			
		

> I recall an incident about 15 yrs ago, where a Tae Kwon Do blk blt cold cocked a guy in a dance club with a heel palm to the guys chin. [the guy had said something to the blk blts friend. nothing was said to the blk blt] So as this guy left his fiance' and walked to the rest room, the blk blt walked up, spun this guy around and heel palmed him in the face. The guy dropped striking his head on the dance floor and died. The blk blt was tried and convicted of manslaughter.


 
Sounds like a great family. He probably deserved more than a couple of years.


----------



## Doc (Dec 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's a great quote. I love it.
> 
> I saw a Kenpo demonstration in college. The instructor was actually advocating gouging a person's eyes after he had been knocked to the ground, _even if he was no longer able to fight_, because it was essential to do the whole technique every time, and this was part of the technique. I was dumbfounded.


Wow. That's amazing to me. To teach these things without emphasizng the moral/legal aspects is irresposible. Even more irresponsible is to NOT have, or at least SEEK, alternative knowledge. An art that, the higher you go the more you beat a person, is inverse to the spirit and true knowledge of the arts. 

When I first met Mr. Parker, these maiming techniques were not a part of his teachings. Many rejected the "new" material that splintered off from his teachings, and ultimately because of its flexibility and commerciality, it overwhelmed the business and became the dominant philosophy. But this perspective was NEVER a central theme to his personal art execution and evolution. You'll find many of the "ancients" other than myself, also rejected that material and refused to learn it. Some simply kept doing what they were doing before, and received rank without learning the "new stuff." Others just drifted away. 

AT the time I was teaching for City of Los Angeles Youth Services, and these things were not allowed. When I went into law enforcement, that too gave me a "different" perspective from some of the material he was beginning to introduce for the commercial market. But he loved law enforcement, and we spent a lot of time on material especially for cops. Obviously that type of soft tissue and maiming material was inappropriate and indefensible in the real world, absent a true articulatable life and death set of circumstances.

Mr. Parker said that anybody can "stick their fingers in someone eyes," or "claw the face," "stomp a foot," or "squeeze, knee, and strike testicles." It's "easy self-defense" like what they teach in those one day women's seminars or community service semester courses.

"All of those things are instinctual and don't really have to be taught much."

To me the fact these more or less common simple responses form the basis of what most learn, speaks volumes of the lack of depth of the material. But then, that's why it is what it is, taught the way it is, and is very succesful. - Anybody can do it, regardless of age. Ed Parker was a genius.

"The higher you go doesn't mean the more you maim, it should mean the more you're humane." - Ed Parker Sr. (he said with a broad smile )


----------



## still learning (Dec 23, 2005)

Hello, Many schools do NOT teach verbal escapes/and to de-escalated situtions.

READ as many materials on this topic.  Verbal Judo should be a must read book and others like it.

Prevention is better than cure!  Awarenees, avoidence, leads to waking up the next day in your own bed.  Choices can be Jail,death, or in the hospital.

Ever see lawyers fist fight?    ....they know better...and can talk there way out........the good ones anyway...........Aloha


----------



## Zoran (Jan 5, 2006)

An interesting article:
http://www.stratford-herald.co.uk/mainstory.php?ID=535

Is it me, or does the peace seem biased. Painting the "victim" into St. Nick, and the martial artist/bouncer/boxer into a thug. Somehow, I can't believe the story is so one sided.

It reminds me when I was bouncing when I had someone charging in with his fist raised to hit me. It was one of the few times I actually hit someone in the face at the job. He did get knocked out for a few seconds, otherwise there was no real damage. I can't help but wonder if when he fell, and cracked his skull, what the media would do with that story.

P.S.
The article says the victim was 21 stone and over 6ft. 21 stone = 294 pounds


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> An interesting article:
> http://www.stratford-herald.co.uk/mainstory.php?ID=535
> 
> Is it me, or does the peace seem biased. Painting the "victim" into St. Nick, and the martial artist/bouncer/boxer into a thug. Somehow, I can't believe the story is so one sided.
> ...


 
Typical of a Newspaper to paint only half of the picture.  I notice that it says nothing of what the victim was doing other than touching the dancer.  Was he being aggressive in any way?  Did he take a swing at the bouncers?  It certainly would be interesting to hear the full story.

Mike


----------



## Zoran (Jan 5, 2006)

Another article with a little more info:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4584398.stm


----------



## rziriak (Jan 5, 2006)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's a great quote. I love it.
> 
> I saw a Kenpo demonstration in college. The instructor was actually advocating gouging a person's eyes after he had been knocked to the ground, _even if he was no longer able to fight_, because it was essential to do the whole technique every time, and this was part of the technique. I was dumbfounded.



With most Kenpo techs we would not be able to complete the entire tech.  I think it is pretty rediculous to gouge a persons eyes out if they are laying on the ground totally incapacitated.  This...IMO is complete overkill.  It seems you feel the same way.  Most of our techs will accomplish this in the first two or three moves.

My 2 cents worth


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 5, 2006)

ah yes, we call this 'OverSkill'


----------



## Ray (Jan 5, 2006)

rziriak said:
			
		

> I think it is pretty rediculous to gouge a persons eyes out if they are laying on the ground totally incapacitated. This...IMO is complete overkill.


You're right.  It is also illegal (IMO) as it is way beyond what the law may define as "reasonable."    If you've got someone incapacitated on the ground, then nothing more is reasonable.  In fact, a reasonable defense might sometimes be no more than a sincere apology.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 5, 2006)

Yeah, he definitely lost me with that. I investigated the three martial arts clubs at the university my freshman year, and joined the Judo and Aikido clubs but skipped this one. (Then I hurt my wrist sparring and had to drop them!) It was clear to me that this was an unreasonable approach.

It's good to have somewhere to go if the first few techniques aren't enough...but I would imagine that in most cases the first few would decide the day, as suggested.


----------



## rziriak (Jan 6, 2006)

KenpoTess said:
			
		

> ah yes, we call this 'OverSkill'



"OverSkill"  I like it!!!!


----------



## Doc (Jan 6, 2006)

rziriak said:
			
		

> "OverSkill"  I like it!!!!


Yeah, it's a term used to cover up the fact that you really are not as skilled as you think you are. More mayhem doesn't equate to an over abundance of "skill," but a lack of same.


----------



## rziriak (Jan 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a term used to cover up the fact that you really are not as skilled as you think you are. More mayhem doesn't equate to an over abundance of "skill," but a lack of same.



Ah!  Thank you.  Now I really do like it.

BTW, last night I did pass our latest test and received my blue.  Only one seriously bruised, (thought broken at first), rib.  Now I'm on my way to a seminar.

Blessings all!


----------



## Kacey (Jan 7, 2006)

teej said:
			
		

> .
> It all comes down controling your temper and being a responsible individual. "Responsible for you actions"
> Teej



I think that this quote is they key.  Also, as an instructor, I feel that I have a responsibility to teach my students when it is appropriate to use the skills they learn in class - especially as I teach children as well adults.  We regularly have discussions, as part of class, about what level of force (usually by type of technique) should be used in what situation.

I realized, one day years ago, that I might have been overdoing the "don't use it unless you are physically in danger" when one of my students, then a blue belt (4th gup) about 14 years old, came to class horribly upset, with a story that started:

"I have to tell you this and I know you're going to kick me out of class for misusing TKD, but here's what happened..."

It turns out that another student in his 8th grade class had brought a tarantula to school.  My student had a nearly pathological dislike of spiders, and didn't want to have anything to do with the tarantula; in addition, the owner of the spider disliked my student.  In attempting to annoy him, the owner shoved the tarantula to within 2 inches of my student's face - he then shoved the other student off him; no technique, nothing but reflex - but he was convinced that he had misused what I taught and was going to be excluded from the class.  So while I would rather err on the side of caution, I discovered that point that I needed to discuss the possible scenarios in more detail, and also just what constituted "misuse" of TKD - before someone DIDN'T use it when they should have.


----------



## RealTaiji (May 3, 2008)

It's a tedious balance. I like to each students individually; some need overskill (I like the term too) just to break shyness. Some folks would rather be throttled than hurt someone else--even a perpetrator.

Balance. The tendency, I think, is for soft folks to enjoy learning more sensitivity skills, when they really need tough work. And hard workers gravitate toward rough overskills, while they could use a bit of sensitivity.


----------



## Samuel Joseph Lonewolf (May 30, 2008)

It is easy for alot of yahoos to slander and defame an individual's character, by using the internet to hide behind. I know from first hand
experience of yahoos slandering me personally. What you individuals who
slandering and defaming people via the internet can now be trace back to you people that are doing it. And once it is trace back to you, you can be
brought up on Federal Charges now and you can be sued.
I firmly believe, if you don't know the person and are going by what others have said; think about what you are doing. If have not walked a mile in their moccasins, then stay out of that person's ife. Especially you who consider yourselves computer investigators and have nothing better to do.
I have nothing to hide. If want my address just ask me. I be glad to invite you to my dojo and offer you a cup of good java; and talk with you. I
have earn my rank the hard way - by training the old way. And if you
don't know me personally and choose to judge me, I ask you this " Are
without sin". If you are without sin, then cast the first stone at me in person. And please don't try and hide your religious beliefs. I am well
aware of religious beliefs. And just maybe, I might know something about you. Think about it beforew you choose to judge someone - the street
goes both ways. My mother always taught me, if I didn't have anything
good to say about someone, it is better to just leave it alone. May you
all walk in beauty and may you all be blessed.
Respectfully,
Samuel Joseph Lonewolf, Professor of Martial Arts


----------



## Zoran (May 31, 2008)

Samuel Joseph Lonewolf said:


> It is easy for alot of yahoos to slander and defame an individual's character, by using the internet to hide behind. ..................................
> Respectfully,
> Samuel Joseph Lonewolf, Professor of Martial Arts



Has nothing to do with this thread's topic. Obviously, you have an axe to grind. This is MartialTalk.com, not MartialSoapbox.com.


----------



## Matt (May 31, 2008)

Zoran said:


> Has nothing to do with this thread's topic. Obviously, you have an axe to grind. This is MartialTalk.com, not MartialSoapbox.com.



I thought it was just me. I even went back and read the whole thread to see which part I missed. Maybe I should post my favorite brownie recipe here next - it would fit this thread just as well.


----------



## Doc (May 31, 2008)

Samuel Joseph Lonewolf said:


> It is easy for alot of yahoos to slander and defame an individual's character, by using the internet to hide behind. I know from first hand
> experience of yahoos slandering me personally. What you individuals who
> slandering and defaming people via the internet can now be trace back to you people that are doing it. And once it is trace back to you, you can be
> brought up on Federal Charges now and you can be sued.
> ...


I am unaware of your issues sir on the internet, but as the starter of this thread, your comments are completely out of context and inappropriate to the discussion. MartialTalk is not a place for gripe sessions of this order. I respectfully suggest you defend yourself, if you feel the need, in the same venue where the slight or problem was allowed to occur.

Respectfully,

Dr. Ron Chapél AKA
Ron Four Paws


----------



## Doc (May 31, 2008)

Matt said:


> I thought it was just me. I even went back and read the whole thread to see which part I missed. Maybe I should post my favorite brownie recipe here next - it would fit this thread just as well.



Uh, did you say "brownies?" The creamy, soft kind with nuts right? The kind that when they're nice and warm they .........

I apologize. I'm on a diet and sometimes I just ... well ... nevermind.


----------



## Monadnock (May 31, 2008)

Apparently another sokie-dokie:

http://www.tiptopwebsite.com/websites/index2.php?username=nikodoc&page=15

Appointed and given the rank of Grandmaster by the
Hawaiian Martial Arts International Society :
July 12th, 2003.
Saigo Ha Daito Ryu : Sokeship in the Martial Art
System of : Ichi Kuni Ryu Saigo Ha Daito  Ryu
Aikibujutsu on : May 17,2006.
World Organizer of Martial Recognize my Sokeship on
: Sept. 13th, 2006.
Received my Grandmaster in the Art of American Kenpo
Lima Lama Fighting System August of 2006.
Receive my Dotorate of the Arts of the American Kenpo
Lima Lama Fighting System : October 2006.
Receive my 8th Dan in Hawaii Kosho Ryu Kenpo Jiu Jitsu
on : Sept. 12, 2003.
Receive Master Ranking in Pamamraaan Sa Sining At Siya
Ay Pinagkakalooban Ng Antas Na, by the International
Philippine Martial Federation by:
Grandmaster Ernesto A Presas & Grandmaster Tom Carnes
on : October 25th,1999.
Recieved Recognition of Sokeship by: World Union of
Sokes on : May 10th,2006.
I started studying martial arts on July 12, of 1957,
with my father a second generation in Goshinjitsu
black belt under Prof. John Chow Hoon, and myself a 
second generation black belt under Prof. Thomas Young.
I have continously studied Hawaiian Kenpo for fifty-
one years. I also studied Hakko Ryu Jiu Jitsu and
obtain the rank of 5th Dan/Godan in 1984, from 
O'Sensei Michael De Pasquale, Sr.
After studying the martial arts, I develope my own 
brand/system of martial arts, which is a combination
of Aikibujitsu, Jiu Jitsu, Karate, Escrima and
American Indian ways of fighting.

And if that wasn't enough:

http://www.tiptopwebsite.com/websites/index2.php?username=nikodoc&page=3


----------



## Doc (May 31, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> Apparently another sokie-dokie:
> 
> http://www.tiptopwebsite.com/websites/index2.php?username=nikodoc&page=15
> 
> ...


Sir, with all due respect, your post is also out of line. Perhaps you should start a new thread and address any issues you may have, and maintain the integrity of the thread please. Let's not be kenponet here please.


----------



## Zoran (May 31, 2008)

I have to agree with Doc. Even though Lonewolf opened himself to scrutiny, this thread is not the place. 

Back to the thread topic, there are a few articles that relate to martial arts and the law here.


----------



## Monadnock (May 31, 2008)

Doc said:


> Sir, with all due respect, your post is also out of line. Perhaps you should start a new thread and address any issues you may have, and maintain the integrity of the thread please. Let's not be kenponet here please.



Sorry bout that.


----------



## marlon (May 31, 2008)

my instructor taught me to teach that the best kempo was to not be  there.  name calling , even robbery are not enough to really engage an assailant to the level of maiming or worse.  When defending your life or the life of another against multiple attackers or armed assailants is when "all out kempo" is appropriate.  i do my best to teach the students who come to me that in most cases there is no need for all of your kempo...we discuss scenarios and such as a part of class but not as a separate subject (perhaps i should) and i emphasize that walk away is the best rule...run away is the second best..fighting is the worst use of ones kempo..but should it come to that...win.  That being said and reading this execellent post by Doc i am even more sensitized to the issue, however most of the kempo techniques i have are riddled with control points.  That is to say points where one can stop, or continue and points where one can assume anotomical control of an assialant to the extent that it is viable to dis engage or control a single attacker while waiting for the authorities or reason to prevail.  It is one of the things i love the most about kempo.

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## Kacey (May 31, 2008)

marlon said:


> *my instructor taught me to teach that the best kempo was to not be  there.  *name calling , even robbery are not enough to really engage an assailant to the level of maiming or worse.  When defending your life or the life of another against multiple attackers or armed assailants is when "all out kempo" is appropriate.  i do my best to teach the students who come to me that in most cases there is no need for all of your kempo...we discuss scenarios and such as a part of class but not as a separate subject (perhaps i should) and i emphasize that walk away is the best rule...run away is the second best..fighting is the worst use of ones kempo..but should it come to that...win.  That being said and reading this execellent post by Doc i am even more sensitized to the issue, however most of the kempo techniques i have are riddled with control points.  That is to say points where one can stop, or continue and points where one can assume anotomical control of an assialant to the extent that it is viable to dis engage or control a single attacker while waiting for the authorities or reason to prevail.  It is one of the things i love the most about kempo.
> 
> respectfully,
> Marlon




I agree with Marlon, and Marlon's instructor (bolded sentence) - and, in fact, my instructor teaches the same thing, and so I do.  From a self-defense perspective, not being in a situation where you need to defend yourself is the best defense.  

From a legal perspective, being able to prove that you felt you (or those with you, or victims who were unable to defend themselves) were in immediate danger, *and* that you did the minimum necessary to prevent/remove that danger is the best method.  Once the attacker(s) are fled, disarmed, downed, or otherwise rendered incapable of continued attack - STOP.  But once you're able to leave the situation, *get out* - continued attack (even defensive attacks) on your part could easily leave you open to countersuits of excessive force by your attacker.  Leave the situation as quickly and in as orderly a fashion as is expedient.  Call the police _when you are safely away_ - stopping to call before you are safely away could easily put you in further danger.  Be able to explain what you did - and more importantly, why you felt you needed to do it, why you went to whatever extent your need for self-defense caused you to go to.  But don't stay to beat on your opponent once you can leave... no matter how much your baser instincts may be telling you to do so.


----------



## Doc (Jun 1, 2008)

Monadnock said:


> Sorry bout that.



I know, it was really tempting.


----------

