# The Kenpo "knife fantasy" - a deadly dream



## howardr (Feb 5, 2004)

I thought I might offer up a few thoughts for discussion on a topic that I think deserves some attention. It was triggered from the recent Knife Techniques In The Kenpo System poll and in particular Mill's knife pictured in a post by _Kenpo Yahoo_. I went to the Mill's site in order to determine the length of that knife and it was a bit bigger than I had guessed from the Kenpo Yahoo's picture. Well, on to the point of all this...

* It strikes me that there a good number of Kenpo people (and I'm sure more generally, MA people) practice using a knife, such as the Mill's knife mentioned above for _use against other people_ rather than for defensive practice (disarms, etc.).

* It also strikes me that there are a good number of Kenpo people (probably a subset of the above) that actually routinely carry such a weapon on their person, in their car, etc., with the intent to use it in the practiced manner should the relevant situation ever arise.

* Without getting into a detailed discussion of first year Criminal Law (not to mention civil liability), I'm guessing that many of these knife fighting practitioners don't appreciate how unfavorably the criminal justice system looks at a knife wielding individual (even a knife wielding person defending himself). Now certainly the particulars of the situation will determine what will happen, but generally speaking there has to be *extremely* dire circumstances to warrant the use of the sort of knife AND the sort of knife techniques that I've heard/seen mentioned by Kenpoists over the years.

I ask Kenpo knife carriers and knife fighting practitioners, what are the sort of circumstances that you think would warrant (i.e., would be criminally exculpatory) using a knife against another with said techniques? What sort of situations do you think would not warrant said use?

I'm honestly curious and concerned.

Thanks.


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2004)

You bring up alot of good points.  IMO, in order to understand a disarm you also need to know how to fight with the knife.  I also train in Arnis, so during my classes, we're constantly working with and against a knife.  While that statement might sound strange, think about it this way.  It applies to many things in life.  If you want to fix something on a car, such as the breaks, dont you think that you should know about a car first?  The same thing applies to the knife.  If you dont have any idea as to how you might be attacked, how can you possibly do an effective defense?

As for actually using the knife in a situation.  Well, a few things to keep in mind.  I would think that using only as much force against the attacker as he is using against you, is the best way to go.  If he himself is armed, regardless of if its a knife of his own, a bottle, club, etc. your knife can be considered the equalizer so to speak.  

Considering the world and society that we live in today, it seems that everybody is sue happy.  Regardless of whatever the situation is, you can almost be sure that you'll find yourself in court.  Here you have a guy that was trying to rob you, steal your car, maybe rape your wife, and you defend yourself, and what happens? You find yourself getting sued by the very person that was trying to cause YOU the harm!!!!  Sounds pretty messed up to me.

IMO, I feel that criminals use a weapon for nothing more than the intimidation factor.  For fear of getting cut or shot, you comply with what they want you to do.  The same can be said for you using the knife.

Mike


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 5, 2004)

You bring up a good poin there many people are getting into knives now, myself included.  I now have a Kukari and a Combat Knife (K-Bar).  But you also have to talk about the people that carry guns too.  As you know in the Kenpo cariculum there are also gun techniques such as Capturing the Rod and Twisted Rod. People do not only carry knives out onto the street, they also cary guns like a few of my instructors.  You see alot more stories on the news about people getting shot then stabbed. I do not beleive in them myself but that is a matter of opinion.  Just thought I would bring that up.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2004)

I don't study Kenpo.

I am commenting because I always have a knife on me.

Yes, it is true that the circumstance would have to be dire for me to use it. However, I believe that the circumstance would have to be dire for me to use ANY of my self defense techniques, period.
So, if it is believable enough that I might have to someday in the future defend myself, then it is also believable that the circumstance will warrent deadly force, and where I will need my knife. Pretty simple to understand.

Here are some basic rules for using a knife for self defense:

1. Only carry what's legal. A small blade will be just as deadly as a large one in the right hands. Carry what is legal because if you have to use it, you won't have as many questions to answer.

2. Only use a knife if the situation warrents deadly force. A knife is a deadly object, like a gun. Therefore it should be treated as such.

There are other technical tips, but I think that we are discussing the morality/legality issue of carrying.


----------



## howardr (Feb 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MJS _
> *You bring up alot of good points.  IMO, in order to understand a disarm you also need to know how to fight with the knife.  I also train in Arnis, so during my classes, we're constantly working with and against a knife.  While that statement might sound strange, think about it this way.  It applies to many things in life.  If you want to fix something on a car, such as the breaks, dont you think that you should know about a car first?  The same thing applies to the knife.  If you dont have any idea as to how you might be attacked, how can you possibly do an effective defense?*


*

I certainly would not dispute the general idea that you must understand the nature of an attack in order to defend against it properly. (I think that's an area that is sadly lacking in many approaches to Kenpo, but that's a whole 'nother enchilada.) However, what I've witnessed, read about, and heard from various Kenpoists and Kenpo organizations leads me to believe that much of knife study is not merely to understand the attack in order to properly defend. In fact, I get the clear and distinct impression that the offensive "knife work" is (aside from the quite proper defensive use of such training) an end-in-itself.

In other words, fileting a person into ribbons seems to be the goal (or at least one of the more important goals) to knife techniques and practice. Was that not one of the considerations, the immoral and illegal nature of much of these knife fighting techniques, that led Mr. Parker and his son to not publish the extant book, "Speak with a Knife"?

I guess what I'm saying is that learning knife fighting techniques, apart from the purely defensive implications for disarming etc., is really a fantasy (on the order of childhood pining for ninjahood) that if enacted in reality would, aside from wartime or equally dire civil situations, land you in jail for murder and mayhem and penniless to boot. And, further, I think that it can be a dangerous fantasy to foster because it will eventually get someone killed, and someone else in jail. Why else carry a knife if one is not prepared to use it?

In rare and deadly situations one can always (or usually) carry other "equalizers" such as pepper-spray. And, while that is not fool-proof (neither is a knife, a gun, or Kenpo) it might give one enough of an edge to escape, or if necessary physically vanquish without the permanent injury or death that is at the heart of these knife fantasies.




			As for actually using the knife in a situation.  Well, a few things to keep in mind.  I would think that using only as much force against the attacker as he is using against you, is the best way to go.  If he himself is armed, regardless of if its a knife of his own, a bottle, club, etc. your knife can be considered the equalizer so to speak.
		
Click to expand...


Interesting, as one might suppose that to be a universally valid approach. That seems just, right? Unfortunately, that may not hold legal water.

Threatening or using a knife against another is generally considered deadly force. Depending on the jurisdication, one might be justified in using deadly force to oppose deadly force, but in other jurisdictions that might land you in jail. The reason is that in some jurisdictions, one has a duty to retreat, if possible, even if faced with deadly force. (There are many other considerations and caveats; this is a just a general proposition.)

Another consideration is that if one disarms a knife wielding attacker and then instinctively shreds the attacker apart with his knife techniques that he's practiced oh so lovingly, then the defender has now become the aggressor and will be prosecuted. Obviously all of this depends upon the exact circumstances, localities, etc. But, the point is it isn't so simple (even as an unarmed defender) as many knife aficionados might suppose.

Something to think about.

ps, I'd love to hear what our resident law enforcement officers have to say on this subject. I'm sure it would be most enlightening.*


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 5, 2004)

I disagree with you completely.

I am an adult male. If I am attacked at all, there is a good chance that my life will be in danger, and lethal force will be needed. If I am not prepared to use lethal force to defend myself, then I am not practicing good self-defense. Period.

A lot of people have CCW permits in my state. If someone trys to harm them and it is justifiable, they can pull their gun and shot that person. They may have a lot of explaining to do, but they will not get thrown in jail if lethal force is proven to have been justified.

You don't need a CCW permit to carry a knife under the legal limit, yet the standards are the same. If lethal force in justified, you can use your knife without legal repricussions.

None of this is fantasy. Its just good self defense.

PAUL


----------



## CoolKempoDude (Feb 5, 2004)

i saw a middle old man carry a long knife (15 inches long) and walk around in a public place. Swap meet.

nobody amazingly stopped / questioned him. He hang this knife on his right leg.

he didn't hide it. Everybody can see it. It was right there


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 5, 2004)

I used to carry a knife for self defense, but don't anymore due to the legal and moral reasons you mentioned plus a couple others which I'll describe in a minute. I've switched over to carrying a collapsable baton when I feel like carrying anything at all. I'll admit that I've made an assumption that the law would look more kindly on the baton--I'd be curious to hear the reality.

I do, however, train in empty hand tactics against a knife--Kenpo (techniques I don't like) and Systema (much better, in my opinion). And it's good to know the characteristics of the knife and be familiar with ithe offensive side of it even when you don't plan on using one yourself.

I find knives in general, and particularly the tactical folder to be largely an impractical weapon. It takes time to deploy and is extremely short-range. This goes both ways--the only time a knife attacker really has an advantage over you is in very close, confined quarters. If he's already got the drop on you in this scenario, if he's going to cut you, then you probably won't want to spend precious time fumbling for your knife and you're back to fighting empty-handed. In an open area, I'm confident my adrenalin and speedy feet could get me out of range pretty quickly. Additionally, he probably won't want to run after you slashing as he goes, drawing attention to himself. If he looks like he just wants my money, I'll give it to him.                                  

If I've got time but I'm still cornered, say for some reason on the other side of a large locked room, I could still draw a baton or use an improvised weapon. As an example, on a plane, a rolled-up in-flight magazine and a jacket.

Ok, I'm waiting for the blowback.


----------



## CoolKempoDude (Feb 5, 2004)

knife techniques in kenpo/kempo is really interesting and it would be nice to see more people participate in this topic. Excellence topic i must say.

the question here is how close you want your knife attacker to be close ???

if he is close enough and you are not fast enough, you are death.

Japanese sword is considered another extended knife ????

defending against long knife and short knife is different.

somebody here mentioned about another *system*. I would like to know how they defend knife attack ????


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 5, 2004)

The "system" I referred to was Systema, which is a russian martial art, also referred to as...you guessed it, Russian Martial Art. I recommend going to www.russianmartialart.com and checking out their video clips. I'm not good at it yet but I've seen people who can just rip it. It's different than any other martial art I've seen, but if I was forced to describe it in those terms, I'd say it's like a blend of Aikido and American Kenpo--though there are no set techniques, forms or sets. 

The knife stuff (and I'm being really basic here since I'm not that experienced with it) is trained using avoidance with a flexible body and intuiting your opponent's moves, and in kenpo terms, contact manipulation with the knife itself, trapping it or redirecting it with your body (on it, not in it, at least that's the plan) which is often on the midsection. At higher levels, live blades are used, in the beginning, trainers and dulled knives are suitable. Basically you're working _with_ your opponents movements to defeat him. As I reread this I can tell I'm not doing it justice. Go to the Web site and you'll see what I mean. I'm going to a seminar with Vlad all weekend. Can't wait. 

As for Kenpo's knife techniques, I feel they're too complex and don't match the level of spontaneity and danger associated with the knife's characteristics. I love most of Kenpo, but I think that's one place it falls short.


----------



## howardr (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I disagree with you completely.
> 
> I am an adult male. If I am attacked at all, there is a good chance that my life will be in danger, and lethal force will be needed.*


*

That your life was in danger is something that the police, prosecutor and jury of your peers will decide. 




			A lot of people have CCW permits in my state. If someone trys to harm them and it is justifiable, they can pull their gun and shot that person. They may have a lot of explaining to do, but they will not get thrown in jail if lethal force is proven to have been justified.

You don't need a CCW permit to carry a knife under the legal limit, yet the standards are the same. If lethal force in justified, you can use your knife without legal repricussions.

None of this is fantasy. Its just good self defense.

PAUL
		
Click to expand...

*
First of all, such a blanket statement is not true. You cannot make the generalization that "if someone tries to harm them and it is justifiable, they can pull their gun and shoot that person." What does "and it is justifiable," mean in that sentence? It is NOT true that if someone is trying to harm another that on that fact alone deadly force is warranted. It's just that sort of cavalier attitude that will land you in jail and another in the morgue. Regarding your statement that "if lethal force is justified, you can use your knife without legal repercussions," please consider the following...

Generally self-defense (here as a justified homicide) requires:
1. An _honest_ and _reasonable_ belief that a person is coming at defendant with an _imminent deadly_ attack.
2. The actor responded reasonably, i.e., force was _necessary_.

The requirement to retreat:
1. A majority of jurisdictions (35 states) say that if defendant is free from fault that he can stand his ground. Whether a defendant is free from fault is often in dispute in these sort of cases.
2. The remaining minority of jurisdictions (15 states) want you to retreat if it is safe to do so (even if you are not at fault). If it is not safe to do so, then you don't to retreat.
    a. if you are in your home you don't have to retreat. This is known as the Castle Doctrine (think of your home as your castle, and a man shouldn't have to relinquish his castle).

Other possibilities:
1. If the belief that a person is coming at defendant with an imminent deadly attack is _honest_ but _unreasonable_ then this is voluntary manslaughter. Again, whether deadly force was necessary in the circumstances is also often in dispute in these events.
2. Situations where defendant sought justification defense but was not free from fault (a topic onto itself).

Remember, as I said above, as much as you feel justified in using deadly force in what you thought was self-defense, that is not enough legally. That is both a matter of law and of fact, which will be determined by other people: the police who are naturally and quite reasonably suspicious (after all everybody says they did it in self-defense, and you're holding the bloody knife), prosecutors who are not necessarily looking for justice but rather racking up wins, and the jury (they get nice pretty pictures of the butchered body).

Also consider that in _many_ cases of self-defense there will be no other witnesses (or it might be a he said-he said if your attacker survives, or possibly even hostile witnesses). Then one factor (out of many others) will be your story. When the jury hears the prosecutor describe and then show pictures of the sliced up "victim" that will go a long way toward undermining your own version as an innocent.

Just some things to think about.


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2004)

A few things to look at here.  Howard, you mentioned knife vs. knife in this quote:



> Another consideration is that if one disarms a knife wielding attacker and then instinctively shreds the attacker apart with his knife techniques that he's practiced oh so lovingly, then the defender has now become the aggressor and will be prosecuted. Obviously all of this depends upon the exact circumstances, localities, etc. But, the point is it isn't so simple (even as an unarmed defender) as many knife aficionados might suppose.



Something to look at here. When talking about the disarms, what I really happening here is not a disarm, but rather an attack on the arm.  Paul and I both come from a FMA background.  There are many limb destructions in the FMA's.  Rather than blocking a punch, you attack the arm.  Same thing applies here.  You're taking your knife and attacking his arm. This is called defanging the snake in the FMA.  

I agree with Paul here.  Keep in mind, that its THIS guy whos attacking you.  I'm going to do what I have to do to survive the situation.  Heres something else to look at.  Its 2am.  You're sleeping and you hear the sound of glass breaking.  You realize that someone might be breaking into your house.  I dont know about you, but I'm gonna pick up whatever I can, be it a stick, gun if I had one in the house, a knife, chair or whatever, and I'm gonna use it!!  After all, who broke into whos house here??? I'll tell ya, the judge and jury would have to be pretty messed up in the head to not side with the victime here.  I have no idea if this guy is armed or not, and I'm not waiting until its too late to find out.  Sure, if it goes to trial, its gonna look like excessive force when they find out you hit this guy over the head with a chair.  Yeah ok, but I'm supposed to let this guy kill me, rape my wife, and rob my house??? I dont think so.  You hear it all the time when a cop shoots someone.  The aholes family says, "Why did they have to shoot him in the chest? How come they didnt shoot his leg?" Come on people.  They are trained to shoot center mass, not try to hit someone in the leg while they're moving.  Maybe, just maybe if this dirtbag stopped and listened to the cop, their dirtbag son would still be alive to tell about it, right??

A cop leaves the house, and it could very well be the last time they see their family.  They do what they have to do in order to come home safe at the end of the shift.  If someone is stupid enough to attack someone trained in the arts, then IMO, they get what they deserve. PERIOD!!!  

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

Empty hand Vs. knife strategies...

#1. Run. By far the best option, and prefered if you are able too. You have the best chance of survival if you can run.

#2. Do something right away that will disable the knife. An immediate disarm of the knife, an immediate interception and control of the knife hand, or an immediate attack resulting in the attacker being completely immobilized would be an example. The problem with this is you can't screw this up at all; if you do, your chances of being cut to pieces rise dramatically. Furthermore, this requires a committed attack; the less committed and telegraphed, the less likely your chances of pulling this off. And finally, to do this option requires an extreme amount of proficiency on your part.

The biggest problem with this is that no matter how much you have trained, a sharp blade will always cut your flesh on contact, but your technique will not always work on contact. He has a sure thing in his hand, where as your technique is neer a sure thing. This is how the odds are always against you, no matter how trained you are.

#3. Dodge and evade until you can run or grab something to aid you in your defense. This is preferable if you are not trained well, and you can't run. It is also your only option if #2 fails (and you can't run). You can always try #2 again, but remember that your chances of being cut are greater with each failed attempt, and they weren't in your favor to begin with. Problem with this is that once again, the longer your in the situation, the greater your chances of being cut. Furthermore, he can close on you faster then you can retreat just like he can win a running race against you if you run backwards while he runs forwards. Also, action is faster then reaction. Another disadvantage is that if you are able to pick something up, chances are it won't be lethal enough to stop him, thus prolonging the incident and greatening your odds of being cut.

This solution is extremely problamatic, but must be used if it is all that is available to you.

#4 Spaz out, rush in on him, and barade him with attacks while you are trying to control his knife or subdue him. This isn't quite the same as #2. #2 means your first move immediately subdues his ability to cut you; This is more of a rush where you are trying to overwhelm him with attacks. If you are trained, this may be a better option for you then #3, but this one is even more problamatic then the first three options. Even if you are trained well, you have put yourself in a spot where you will either overcome your attacker, or die trying, period. With #2 your attacker is subdued, with #3 you are at least buying yourself time for an escape, or for an object in your hand that will put the odds in your favor. By rushing in with every technique you know to stop him, you have no chance of surviving if you are not successful. Even if you are successful, you will most likely take serious wounds in the process. 

This is not recomended, and definatily not as a 1st choice. If you try to run and are unsucessful, you can try options 2-4. If you try option #2, you may be able to try another option if your not dead. If you try #3, you may be able to survive with only non fatal cuts as you buy yourself time to run or subdue. With this option, option 4, failure assures your death. Retreating to another option is not really possible with this choice. 

#5. Stand there and let your attacker kill you. This is an option, but it is not a good choice for anyone.


I wrote this before, and it was discussed a little here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12302


----------



## MJS (Feb 6, 2004)

Good points Paul!!:asian: 

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

If you can't deploy your tool, then it is useless! This goes for knives, guns, pepper spray, hand gernades (lol) or whatever you want to carry.

I read in this thread that someone said that tactical folder were not a viable choice for a weapon because of deployment issues. This is a common falacy that many people believe.

FACT:  ALL weapons have deployment issues. 

FACT: If an attacker has the drop on you, you won't have the time to pull your weapon first REGARDLESS of what you carry.

FACT: with little training, a tactical folder can be deployed faster then a properly holstered gun. A tactical folder can also be pulled faster then digging in your pockets or fumbling with your keys to get to your pepper spray, to pull off the safety tab, to deploy the pepper spray. There are very few weapons that are faster to deploy (from the secured carrying position) then a tactical folder, with the exeption of a fixed blade in a kydex sheath.

Carrying a knife is not for everyone, but these are some facts that are largely misunderstood about carrying the knife vs. any weapon. The bottom line is that for ANY weapon to be useful, it has to be in your hand. 

Also, regarding legalities; an easily deployable blade under the legal limit (3 1/2 inches in most counties) is much more acceptable to have (particularly if it looks like a work tool) then a collapsable batton, tazer, or pepper spray. You will often get into more trouble, depending on your state laws, for carrying these other weapons, then carrying a "work tool" like a knife. Example; here in Michigan, Collapsable batons are illegal. In Michigan, I would be legally better off pulling a 3 1/2 inch blade then a batton. 

Now, one thing that is neglected in training is that people (including myself sometimes) don't practice deployment of their self defense tool. This goes for any tool. With little practice, I find that you can greatly reduce your reaction time for pulling your blade. Furthermore, with enough practice pulling a knife will become muscle memory, so you'll have no problems deploying under stress.

Another neglected idea is drawing your folder while your being attacked, or in the middle of a confrontation. Example: he strikes, you execute a parry while simultaniously taking your folder out of your pocket; you then strike with the closed folder butt end on his limb or head, stunning him, giving you time to pop open your folder. These ideas can be improved with training.

THE MOST NEGLECTED IDEA yet, though, is this: if you are aware (and as a martial arts person you should be), the attacker won't have the drop on you putting you at that level of danger where you can't deploy a weapon. Chances are you will know that something is going to happend before it does. Your gut instinct, as well as logical signs will tell you this. Hopefully you be able to use your instinct to avoid an attack. But, bottom line is, when you smell trouble, your weapon goes in your hand in a concealed manner. If you follow this rule, chances are you will never be in a situation where your attacker has the drop on you and you can't deploy your weapon.

Here is an article on carrying knives. The story in the beginning isn't very good, but the advise on carrying is: http://www.realfighting.com/1001/knife.htm


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4155#post4155

Arnisador posted from a WWII combatives manual the general feeling regarding "knife disarms." THis isn't ment to be discouraging, because knife disarms are possabilities. Yet, the moral is: if you go against a blade, you MUST be prepared to be cut!!

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

Another relevent link...what are the knife laws in your state?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law.htm


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

I can't access "blade forums" from my work computer anymore, so I'll try to remember how this was broken down by a military/police trainer over there. Essentially it goes like this...if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.

2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.

3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.

So, if I am outside a bar, and someone follows me out with a broken bottle, corners me near my car, yells something nasty, and attacks me with the bottle...guess what? I can legally pull out my gun and shoot him, or pull my knife and kill him. I don't have to prove "I tried to run" or "I gave him my wallet" or what ever. I don't have to run, or give him my wallet, legally speaking (even though this may show the police and the court my intent). If I can prove that the above three factors were present, I can use lethal force.

Now, I recommend that we all be prudent with our self defense. Example, even if I have a folder on me, I'll try running away from my attacker unless my family or property is in danger, or unless running would be a useless action (cornered, or in a desolate area). Yet, it is poor self defense to sacrifice your own safety of getting out alive for the sake of prudence. If lethal force is present it is your right and DUTY to defend yourself.

I maintain my stance that if the proper legalities are followed, knives are useful self defense tools.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

Sorry for all the repeat posts, but I think that there are some serious falicies going on over here regarding knife defense. Hopefully the info I am presenting will dispel some of the myths.

The last thing I wanted to mention is this: How will you ever expect to understand "the knife culture" or a knife wielding attacker if you never train with knives yourself? 

I am of the personal opinion that every martial artist should train at least a few times with a knife, and shoot a few times with a firearm. WHY? Because it is difficult to understand the mentality of a knife or gun attacker, and even more difficult to understand how to defend against one unless you learn how the weapon is at least handles by these attackers.

O.K....that is most of what I have to say. I know its a lot, but I hope I was able to dispel at least some myths. Yet, I'll be reading your responses. I doubt I'll respond much more then this, though. The reason is, much of what I have said here really isn't open to arguement.

PAUL
:asian:


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 6, 2004)

> Yet, I'll be reading your responses. I doubt I'll respond much more then this, though. The reason is, much of what I have said here really isn't open to arguement.



Paul,
Hee hee, says you. You make a lot of good points, most of which I'll agree with, but I stand firm on one or two points you debated.

I'll agree with you that folding knives can be deployed quickly with enough practice, fixed blades even faster. And they're cool, I own a SOG Vision that's just awesome as a tool and sharp as a razor. BUT, if I had warning of an attack, such as glass breaking in the middle of the night at my home, I'd probably go with trusty Mr. 12 gauge, or at least a weapon with a longer range than my arm + 3 1/2 inches.

Also, if I was out in the open, if I have time to draw a knife, I also have time to turn my butt and start trucking. Why would I want to engage in a contest with another nasty dude holding a very sharp piece of metal, a contest that only ends when one of us bleeds out into unconsciousness or a vital organ is penetrated? I'll concede that fight and get out of there.

In closed quarters, I still don't think the safest move would be to draw my own knife given the lack of time. I'd rather use an environmental weapon as shield or missile and again, buy time to run or attack when the knifer tries to close distance, if he's not already on top of me, in which case we're back to empty hand anyway.

I disagree that an aware martial artist will never "get the drop" laid on him. Everyone is susceptible at one point or another, whether it's just a lapse in attention, sensory overload, or just plain craftiness on the part of the attacker. If you've found some kind of link to the Force, please let me know, I'll pay top dollar.  

I appreciate all the links you listed. One thing you might not have considered is that not all attacks with knives are as committed as the ones you might see on the battlefield, in prison or in Phillipine death matches. The knife attacks I've been witness to and heard about as a result of crime were almost halfhearted. This is not always the case, but something to think about. In these instances everyone survived and in hindsight, they could have avoided trouble entirely.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

What you are saying in your last post doesn't counterdict anything I am saying. My first option is to run or avoid the encounter as well. BUT that doesn't mean that you shouldn't carry a knife because you'll either just run, or he'll have the drop on you so it won't mater anyways. With this logic, one shouldn't carry anything at all. And, maybe some people would rather not carry anything, and that is fine. 

Where I disagree is where you said that a knife was "largely impractical." From the evidence and logic that I provided, I would say that the knife is the "Most practical" to carry, if your trained with it and you are going to carry anything at all. 

And sure, in my home I would grab the 12 gauge also...but we are talking "carrying" not in the home. 

My problem with your logic is that by what your standards NO WEAPON would be practical to carry, because every weapon would be constrained the same way that you mentioned. I should "run first" no matter what I have; knife, gun, baton, pepper spray, or whatever. But, you said you carry a collapsable baton over a knife. This is fine if you have moral reasons for this. But the legal advantage will vary from state to state (and in my state, the advantage is to carry a blade because batons are illegal). In terms of practicality, the baton is not more practical then the knife, especially if we are talking about weapon deployment. If you took two people, one trained with a baton, and one trained with a tactical folder (including drawing), you'll find that the deployment time is about the same. If the person has a fixed blade in a kidex sheath over the baton, the baton person will lose every time.

Also, one last thing...I didn't say that an aware martial artist would NEVER have the drop laid on him. The message I am trying to convey is that with an aware person, especially someone trained to be aware, the chances are far less that the person will be taken by suprise to the point where they have no time to deploy a weapon. 

So with your last post I basically agree with what you said. It was some of the stuff in your other post I disagreed with.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

Phil wrote an interesting article titled Forgetting the 'martial' in "Martial Artist".

He addresses weapon carrying in the article, making some interesting points relevent to the topic. 

I'll also quote him from the firearms forum...(http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12064&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)



> This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.
> 
> Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.
> 
> A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.



I think that the same point can be made regarding knives.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 6, 2004)

I do not agree. 

For one thing, "Sharp Phil's," (now there's a monicker appropriate to what I'm about to write) hypothetical situation amounts to the construction of a straw man for him to whup on. I suspect that any general is quite able to distinguish airplanes from, say, bombs.

For another, he's defining "realism," as a willingness--indeed a positive enjoyment--in blowing stuff up and killing people. 

For another, we can certainly debate the existence of that little animal that does indeed want to hurt people in all of us. I think it's there. 

I realize that this may draw a bit of laughter, but gee, I thought that martial arts taught restraint, ethics, even a little compassion, as well as how to kick ***. And I fail to see what's so bad about the attitude of, "Well, I had to fight, so I took this guy OUT. That's good; I'm OK, and he'll recover. But if I'd been more aware, I could've avoided having to hurt him, or hurt him less maybe? In any case, violence is never good and I should do better next time."

It's gotta be preferable to the remarks I've seen about how easy sticking somebody will be if you just....

I think howardr is on to something here.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

> And I fail to see what's so bad about the attitude of, "Well, I had to fight, so I took this guy OUT. That's good; I'm OK, and he'll recover. But if I'd been more aware, I could've avoided having to hurt him, or hurt him less maybe? In any case, violence is never good and I should do better next time."



I see nothing wrong with this at all, and this is the approach we all should take. I guess my problem is I don't see how carrying a tool (knife, gun, whatever) would prevent us from taking the approach. 

I can respect someone not wanting to carry a weapon for personal reasons. I have trouble understanding why some people who says they are a martial artist (who don't carry) abhor the idea of someone else carrying a knife or gun for protection. Worse yet, I have trouble with "martial artists" making the ridicules arguement that it would be more practical to not have a weapon around for self defense, even if the attacker has a weapon. This is "fantasy" in my opinion. I mean, if you don't want to carry I can respect that. Yet, to say that I'd be better of with nothing for practical self defense purposes over a knife or gun is insanity.

So far, the only thing that Howardr is on to is overconfidence in fantasy knife empty hand techniques, and paranoia over our Criminal justice system. If your life, or the life of your family is on the line, the last thing you should be worried about is what the judge will say. You'll be worrying about what the judge would say while your getting stabbed or shot yourself.
PAUL


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 6, 2004)

fair enough.

I think the problem is, though, that at least some of the folks who claim to be carrying a knife or a gun all the time sure seem to be fascinated with all the little bells and whistles, in a way I recongize from my own childhood, and they sure seem to be eager to use the damn things.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *fair enough.
> 
> I think the problem is, though, that at least some of the folks who claim to be carrying a knife or a gun all the time sure seem to be fascinated with all the little bells and whistles, in a way I recongize from my own childhood, and they sure seem to be eager to use the damn things. *



Yea, I agree. I admit to being an enthusiest, but when there reaction to their weapon is akin to a sex addict in a strip club, or a food addict at a Chinese Buffet, then I think that we definatily have a problem.

Being eager to use their tool to harm someone is, well, just plain wrong. I think that our facinsation with violence in this country is gone overboard (and yes, I am serious. So please ignore my signature lines and aviator as I say this  ) lol.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 6, 2004)

Paul

Yep, we're pretty much in agreement. Let me clarify that I have no problem with anyone else carrying, I'm just stating my moral and personal preference. One reason I sometimes carry a baton (rarely) for SD is because I would feel more comfortable whacking somebody with it than taking a big slice out of them. Personal, moral, and practical preference--I think I'd hesitate less and I prefer it as a weapon in general. The fact that it's not quite as legal as a folding knife is secondary to me.

Here's another thought about deployment of weapons. There are some jobs that are inherently dangerous. To quote Repo Man: "Most people spend their time trying to get out of nasty situations. Repo men spend their time getting INTO them." There are some occupations in which the participants clearly know they're coming into a bad scene, and have the time to contemplate whether or not to bring a weapon into play. In this situation, weapons become much more practical. I'm not one of those people so that colors my opinions. 

I think Sharp Phil's op ed, and that's what it is, an opinion, is off base at least where I'm concerned. I believe there is room for restraint in any conflict. In fact, as a trained martial artist I'm more able to exercise that restraint than ever before. The situation dictates the action, but thinking of possibilities I find very few that would necessitate purposeful deadly force.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 6, 2004)

Yea...I wish I could carry a ASP baton too. I actually am a better trained with stick techniques then with knife, and I would rather not slice a hunk out of someone myself. Of course, knowing me, if I could carry an ASP baton, I'd also carry a knife or two just in case.  

In regards to Phils Op Ed., it was just something to think about. I like Phil, and I like what he writes, but I can't say I am full agreement with everything he says.

I do believe in prudence in self defense situations, and only exerting nessicary force. What I can't stand by is people who are willing to sacrifice their own safety in a self defense circumstance to be prudent. There is a line between nessicary force and dangerously not enough force.

But yea...it looks like we agree on most things here.


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 9, 2004)

Don't forget that there are many knives out the such as the K-bar (combat knife). And other things like the Kukari (short sword) and Panthar Sword (Tai-Chi sword).


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *Don't forget that there are many knives out the such as the K-bar (combat knife). And other things like the Kukari (short sword) and Panthar Sword (Tai-Chi sword).
> 
> 
> *



lol. I would totally carry my Kukri on my hip for s**ts and giggles if it was legal! :rofl:


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 10, 2004)

Hi ParkerKarate,

I think the discussion focused on tactical folders and smaller fixed blades (like Ayoob's model from Masters of Defense and some from Cold Steel) because those are really the only blades you could carry relatively inconspicuously where we live. I think it'd be fun to carry my Kukri, or a fighting Bowie, but unless I'm hunting bear I don't think I have an excuse. Doing so around town would bring PLENTY of unwanted attention.


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 10, 2004)

HAHAHA. If you tried to carry a Kukari on your hip you would be arested in no time. It was a weapon that the soldier used in WWII.  But that is funny though.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *HAHAHA. If you tried to carry a Kukari on your hip you would be arested in no time. It was a weapon that the soldier used in WWII.  But that is funny though. *



I know...I got one!


----------



## howardr (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Essentially it goes like this...if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:
> 
> 1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.
> ...



You see it all depends. It's just not that simple or clear cut (it usually isn't in the Law). First, your argument, while roughly accurate (leaves out important qualifications), ignores my previous point that you may have a duty to retreat depending upon what jurisdiction (read "state") you are in. According to my notes (good as of 2002), 15 jurisdictions want you to retreat if it is safe to do so (even if you are not at fault). So, even in your example you may be in big trouble (i.e., to the contrary you may have to demonstrate that you could not have safely retreated) depending upon in which state the event takes place.

Also, note that I can generate a tremendous number of examples where using a knife in self-defense is much more questionably justifiable than in the scenario you constructed. You see the tough part is that in reality much of the time it isn't so clear cut and often, as I mentioned previously, there are no witnesses, the police arrive after the fact, the DA's office wants to be tough on crime and "vigilantism," and a jury can be swayed by emotional testimony, and here's a dead fellow who has a weeping mother on the stand testifying how her son was a kind and gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly and volunteered at homeless shelters on the weekend (that is when he wasn't drinking at the local watering hole...).



> *Now, I recommend that we all be prudent with our self defense. Example, even if I have a folder on me, I'll try running away from my attacker unless my family or property is in danger, or unless running would be a useless action (cornered, or in a desolate area).*



Again, you are wrong. You say that you can use deadly force to defend your property. As the Court noted in United States v. Peterson (483 F.2d 1222, 1973), "The law never tolerates the use of deadly force in the protection of one's property." Modernly, there are no jurisdictions that allow the use of deadly force in defense of property. According to your argument, however, if a man tries to grab your wallet, but hasn't himself attempted to use or threatened deadly force against you, you are entitled to slice him up into hamburger meat - wrong! You'll find yourself in a cold cell for a very long time if you take that route. Or, what if you are walking back from the mall and you spot in the distance someone breaking into your car in the parking lot. Can you simply shoot them, as your statement seems to clearly indicate, because your property is in danger? Hopefully, you would not, but your statement says that deadly force is justified if your property is in danger.



> *I maintain my stance that if the proper legalities are followed, knives are useful self defense tools. *



You're begging the question. Whether the proper legalities are being followed is precisely what is at issue. And, I maintain that that your understanding of the proper legalities is flawed as is your application of those legal principles. This is not a minor point but literally has life altering implications. Please, put aside your emotional investment and think cooly and rationally about these issues.


----------



## howardr (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I don't study Kenpo.*



I think this might have been part of the problem with this whole discussion. It seems that both you and MJS come from a FMA background rather than a Kenpo background. Not that I don't appreciate your point of view, your art, or generally where you are coming from, because I do, but rather my initial concern involved some things that I think are Kenpo specific. In other words, your FMA knife work may very well be quite different from what concerned me with what I saw being advocated in Kenpo. Actually, in some of the elaborations that you and MJS provided it sounds (and I have admittedly NO FMA experience) that what you are doing is really not what I was worried about. I was concerned with what I saw in Kenpo and that dealt with knife work that literally carved up a human being like a side of beef ala Hannibal Lechter (sic?), in a fashion that might not even be appropriate to a battlefield.


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 12, 2004)

Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know.


----------



## howardr (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know. *



Excellent question! That's both a very easy and at the same time an extremely vexing question to answer.

THE EASY: deadly force is basically just what it sounds like

My own cursory definition would be something like: physical compulsion used in a manner causing or capable of causing death. For example, shooting a gun at someone, stabbing someone with a knife, hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, chopping someone on the back of the neck, etc. Now, if you wanted to get technical, you might look at "physical force," as that which physically (as opposed to mentally) impinges, alters, moves, or modifies another. "Deadly," I've already defined above as roughly that which causes or is capable of causing death.

Of course, it can get a bit circular as "compulsion" is really almost synonymous with "force." I'd argue that to be fully accurate, something like the concept "force," while possible to describe conceptually, should be defined ostensively by pointing to examples in reality (as above, gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.).

THE HARD: how to apply it

All of the above is fine and dandy but doesn't help you much. To really understand what is meant by deadly force in a legal context, and more importantly for it to be of some practical use in determining your own legally valid response to a particular situation, you ought to read and think about a good number of actual cases. You need to immerse yourself in the myriad of facts, the often subtle differences between the cases, and the legal analyses the courts provide. After a time, you'd start to get an appreciation of what is really going on, and it may make you a little "paranoid," (I'd say more like "prudent" rather than "reckless") as I've been labeled recently. Short of attending law school, taking criminal law classes, etc., you might try reading a few simple treatises. One in particular that you might want to peruse would be Carl Brown's "The Law and Martial Arts." It's filled with excerpts and descriptions of cases involving martial arts and self-defense that you may find illuminating as well as discussion of general legal principles.

Please feel free to ask any other questions you have. I do enjoy this topic. I'll try my best to answer them according to my own understanding.

Thanks, Howard

ps, I think it's exceptional that you are interested and concerned with this topic, esp. as an instructor. You may very well (I'd say most likely) be judged by a higher standard if you ever have to use your skills and someone is hurt or killed. Becoming an expert in the martial arts has its obvious advantages (for one it increases the liklihood we'll live to see another day), but like many things has its share of disadvantages ("oh, so you're an expert in self-defense, so you should have had control, and you knew exactly what you were doing didn't you!")


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 12, 2004)

To me you sound like a lawyer or you just have a really high I.Q. But thank you very much for the information. Now I know someone else I can ask questions to know, thank you again.


----------



## howardr (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *To me you sound like a lawyer or you just have a really high I.Q. But thank you very much for the information. Now I know someone else I can ask questions to know, thank you again. *



*Blushing* Thanks, but I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not (the part about sounding like a lawyer)!!!    I'm trying to be clear and not engage in too much legalese. Unfortunately, given the complexities of the legal system and in reality, that is not always completely possible.


----------



## howardr (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know. *



I just had another thought on this. Your concerns are one of the reasons (out of many) that I think Dr. Chapel's approach to Kenpo is highly valuable. Try explaining to the nice officer why you killed a man who put his hand on your shoulder by chopping him in the throat (Sword & Hammer). In my view, a systematic approach to self-defense should amply consider the legal (and moral) consequences of employing said defenses. Otherwise, is it really "self-defense?" Yeah, you might have survived the moment but now you are in jail and you've lost all of your assets. So, in the end you really haven't defended yourself all that well.


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by howardr _
> *I just had another thought on this. Your concerns are one of the reasons (out of many) that I think Dr. Chapel's approach to Kenpo is highly valuable. Try explaining to the nice officer why you killed a man who put his hand on your shoulder by chopping him in the throat (Sword & Hammer). In my view, a systematic approach to self-defense should amply consider the legal (and moral) consequences of employing said defenses. Otherwise, is it really "self-defense?" Yeah, you might have survived the moment but now you are in jail and you've lost all of your assets. So, in the end you really haven't defended yourself all that well. *



Yeah, you're right on that one.  Regarding the chop to the throat.  The majority of Kenpo techs. all contain devastating moves...kick to the groin, hit to the neck,eye...and the list goes on and on.  Sure, people sit there and say that you can adjust the techs. to meet the situation.  Ok.  So take lone kimono.  Do you need to break the guys arm or can you just do an armlock??  Heres a question to ask yourself.  How many times to you actually do that in your training.  What I'm referring to is the controlling moves, or do you just go with the tech. as its written?  I feel that its important to have a good background in locking and controlling tehcs.  Not every situation is gonna warrant a hit to the throat, but if the locks are not something that you do on a regualr basis, chances are, that you're not gonna be thinking about that.  Instead, you'll be thinking of that eye gouge, arm break, etc.  I crosstrain in Arnis, which I feel gives me a much better understanding of the locks.  Therefore, I think that I would have a much easier time adjusting the tech to fit the situation.  And no, I'm NOT saying that everybody should run out and learn Arnis or start to CT.  Just thought I'd throw that in before someone misunderstands what I'm saying!!!!!!

Just a thought.

Mike


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 12, 2004)

thats exactly what I was trying to get at Howardr.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

I know that there are a lot of pretty screwy state laws on the books that makes self defense much more difficult then it should be. Case in point, I know that in Buffalo, NY, if someone attacks you with a knife (for instance) that could justify deadly force. But, if you manage to disarm his knife, or if he drops it and you pick it up, he is weaponless and your armed now, so deadly force is not justified. This means that even if he is still trying to kill you with his bare hands, you could get locked up for using the knife on him that he used to attack you in the first place! Pretty screwed up, eh?

I am not a lawyer (yet). And just because someone is a lawyer, that doesn't mean they know about this issue, anyways. But that doesn't mean that I am completely ignorant on the subject. That doesn't mean that I haven't been to the legal library to look some of these things up. That doesn't mean I haven't been on both sides of the witness table for violent encounters. That doesn't mean that I haven't had to talk to both prosecuting attorneys and defence attorneys, and that doesn't mean that I haven't had to fill out police reports. I have had to do all of these things, so yes, I am very interested in the subject, just like you.

Now in regards to my criteria, I agree with you that nothing is black and white in the eyes of the law. Also, I advocate fleeing in every circumstance that this is a possability! I never said don't run away, because on the contrary, you should. But, I will say that many times if all three criteria are met, running isn't a viable option. "He pulled the knife. I was completely scared, I backed up to run, but he closed in on me so fast that I couldn't flee. In a panic and fear for my life as I way being slashed at, and I was trying to get away, I pulled out many gun and shot him." Who knows what the circumstance will be, but you ALWAYS try to flee and you ALWAYS say you tried to flee in your report.

You always try to flee, unless you can't. I didn't mention this because I figured that this was a given; it seems just common sense to me. I forget that some people who induldge in warrior fantasy might not consider this the viable option that it is.

But despite me forgetting to mention that yea, if you can run, do so (duh), my criteria for deadly force is a good general one to follow. Most human beings who might have to defend themselves aren't attorneys, and most attorneys couldn't recite all the laws and facts that apply to self defense anyways. There are a lot of laws, and I garauntee that you won't  know your @$$ from a hole, let alone what's what in terms of the law if your truely being attacked. This means that we need simple stupid concepts that will keep you out of trouble no matter what state your in. Knowing what constitutes deadly force by my general criteria is a good start. A second thing (that I forgot to mention) is knowing the proper level of response if deadly force is justifiable (basically its #1 flee, #2 pull your weapon #3 pick something up and use it as a weapon, #4 use your bare hands; verbal comands are included in all steps). If you know a few of these things, you can stay safe.

And you mention some different possabilities that could occur even if you follow the prudent criteria for self defense. The fact is, howard, you can do everything right and still end up in jail. I'll repeat what you said in that is a valid point; nothing is black and white. THis is in law or self defense. I think that a lot of modern day warrior-wannabe's who glorify in "martial fantasy" forget that violence is a dirty and horrable thing, and there is always negative consequence. There is no glorification in violence. Even if you manage to live through a violent encounter, there are legal reprocussions, revenge issues, as well as emotional and psychological issues that could haunt you for the rest of your life. It's unrealistic to expect that a violent encounter will end in any other way other then bad, even if you make it out alive. 

I think that there are other people on the other side of the fence who engage in "martial-paranoia." They are so concerned with the laws, and other issues like the morality of not hurting their fellow man, that they are willing to put themselves in danger to avoid any possible legal/moral reprocussions. They would never carry a gun or a knife, and are usually advocates of knife and gun control as they scream to their peers the evils of carrying a weapon. If there was a knife on the counter and someone was going to rape and kill their wives or children, they would be too busy trying to figure out if they should call the police first, flee, use their bare hands, or what have you, and they would be wondering over the legal reprocussions of any of it. Their irrational fear of the law and weapons could cost them or their family their lives if anything were to ever happend. This paranoia is about as irrational as "martial fantasy," and for the same reasons. The reason is that they are forgetting that Violent encounters never end up any other way other then bad. You only have control over how bad it will be. The reality is, you could do all the prudent things to the point where you even cause injury to yourself, and you could still end up in jail.

So whats the solution? Know good, prudent, self defense. Thats the first step. Knowing how to avoid, how to spot danger, and how to flee. Knowing what you should do, and what constitutes lethal force are also important things. Knowing your state laws can be helpful, and I do recommend finding these out, especially if your going to carry a weapon. However, the law is the last thing you can really worry about if your life is on the line.

So, Howard, are you engaging in "martial-paranoia," or are you just interested in the laws, and rebuttling "martial fantasy"? I can't tell from your few posts, which is why I am asking.

PAUL
    :asian:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

Howardr,

I am not looking to educate as much as I am always looking to learn!

I am confused on the property issue. 1st off, I should have never said property in my post, because my personal belief is to give up your wallet, car, or flee you home before using deadly force. "Things" can be recovered, while lives can't be.

But, I am curious about the legal portion of defending ones property. I thought if someone were to break into my home, I could shoot them? I thought that americans have the right to defend our property? I realize that you sited a case law, and it looks federal to me, but how does this fit in with the above? Are there other case laws to counter this (as there often are)? I am curious about this issue now.

If you can refer me to a source, or answer with good evidence, I'd like to hear what you know.

Thanks,

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

I wasn't begging the question, I was making a point. The point is that what you need to know if your going to carry a weapon is the legal issues regarding it. You need to know what you can carry legally, what constitutes lethal force, and some of the laws regarding carrying and use of a blade. If you know the issues (which will vary from state to state) then you will know what you can and can't do and you can apply it appropriately.

I attatched a link to a website that illustrates the state laws. 

You implyed that using a blade (offensive knife work) for self defense will land you in jail. I say that if you abide by the law, like a gun, you can carry and use it for self defense. I am not begging the question. If you want to talk about all the different laws per state, fine, go at it. But remember what your original implication was before you you accuse me of begging the question.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

Howardr,

You are correct, I don't know what techniques are being advocated.

But, I find that the techniques don't really matter. Using a knife is just like using a gun. To use the weapon, deadly force needs to be justified. This means that whether you only slash the hand of your attacker, or if you stab and rip his throat out with the blade, it is considered deadly force. So I find that the actual technique doesn't matter, its the use of the weapon or not.

Now granted, you may have more trouble with the law if you kill the guy rather then just slice, but that will depend on the circumstance.

The fact is, a knife for defense should be treated like a gun, so the technique is generally obsolete in terms of the law.

PAUL


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 12, 2004)

As much as I love knives, I do not think I would carry one, having almost 200 some techniques, I think qualiffies me enough not to carry one but, yea if I took it away from the person some how. I could use it, but you need to be careful, just because you know hoe to use it doen't mean you need to use excesive force. I am not trying to be mean but you seem to be getting mad and it all started after I posted that messege for Howrdr. I might just be reading into it to much, if so I am sorry.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

this thread developed too far before I could check it. 

This should be my last multiple post.

Howardr,

I double checked something after I responded to you rebuking my criteria for deadly force. In the first page of this thread, I advocated running as a first response if you are empty hand against knife. So I didn't exactly forget anything; as I have always said, if you can flee, do so.

Another thing: In regards to practicing "offensive" techniques.... wouldn't you say that to know how to defend against a knife fighter who is trying to kill you, or trying to use offensive techniques against you, that you should know how these techniques work and the mentality behind them for your defense to be effective? If so, then wouldn't that justify practicing these techniques...for proper defense?

Just something for you to think about.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by parkerkarate _
> *As much as I love knives, I do not think I would carry one, having almost 200 some techniques, I think qualiffies me enough not to carry one but, yea if I took it away from the person some how. I could use it, but you need to be careful, just because you know hoe to use it doen't mean you need to use excesive force. I am not trying to be mean but you seem to be getting mad and it all started after I posted that messege for Howrdr. I might just be reading into it to much, if so I am sorry. *



   

LOL theres some smileys! Please forgive me, for I am very blunt, so sometimes on the internet I come accross as angry.

I am not angry at all, and I think it is a good discussion, even if I don't fully agree with some of the views presented.

I fully respect it if you don't want to carry a weapon. I think that you should thing about this, though: knowing 200 techniques doesn't mean that the average street trash can't take you out with the 1 or 2 dirty tricks that they have been "Doing" to victims, rather then practicing as you or I do.

I have found in my 19 years of study in the Martial arts that it doesn't matter how many techniques you know. Weapons are equalizers to problems that may go beyond the techniques that I know. I chose to carry because I know that one day I might need that equalizer.

I fully respect it though if you don't want to carry a weapon, but these are just things to think about.

:asian:


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 12, 2004)

I respect that and I agree with you that knowing 200 some techinqes won't always save my life, but I am just a little too afraid of carrying a K-bar (combat knife) around college and get in trouble for it.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 13, 2004)

parkerkarate said:
			
		

> I respect that and I agree with you that knowing 200 some techinqes won't always save my life, but I am just a little too afraid of carrying a K-bar (combat knife) around college and get in trouble for it.



lol yea I wouldn't do that either...unless hunting is allowed on your campus, and you can prove thats what its for!

I always recommend carrying something legal that can multipurpose for utility and self defense. My executive folder has only an inch and a half blade, and I can use it for a lot of little tasks other then defense. Yet, an inch in a half of sharp in trained hands can be a great deterent if one is needed!

 :asian:


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 13, 2004)

lol thats great


----------



## howardr (Feb 13, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> So, Howard, are you engaging in "martial-paranoia," or are you just interested in the laws, and rebuttling "martial fantasy"? I can't tell from your few posts, which is why I am asking.
> 
> PAUL
> :asian:



Paul,

I'd like to think that I'm simply raising some issues that seem to me may not be well considered by many practitioners (particularly some Kenpo knife-maniacs). So, I wouldn't considered myself to be the "martial-paranoid" type you've described. I'm only trying to open a few eyes by suggesting that certain self-defense strategies may backfire when the smoke clears (even if they get you out of the immediate situation). Just be careful and prudent and be aware that the legal system may not comport with your own sense of justice and fairplay. You, however, sound like the sort that I'm NOT talking about. I'd venture to say that you have a thought-out gameplay. And, as GI Joe would often say, "Knowing is half the battle!"

Cobra Commander Out


----------



## howardr (Feb 13, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Howardr,
> 
> I am confused on the property issue. 1st off, I should have never said property in my post, because my personal belief is to give up your wallet, car, or flee you home before using deadly force. "Things" can be recovered, while lives can't be.
> 
> ...



Well, let's see...

First, the little that I provided previously on this issue (i.e., the basic elements of self-defense) came from notes from a first-year Crim Law class taught by a former Los Angeles prosecutor. I should note, however, that she did not spend a considerable amount of time on self-defense (at least not as much as I would have liked).

The professor stated categorically that under the law defense of property never justified the use of deadly force. (Deadly force may be used in the defense of property only if it is in conjunction with another privileged use of force.) I found the case and quote about defense of property in Dressler's Criminal Law (2nd ed.). The casebook contains other cases covering self-defense, but the one I quoted was used to elucidate the general principles of self-defense as found in contemporary American jurisprudence.

Second, note that I specified above - _deadly force_. You're combining two distinct concepts. You talk about both using deadly force (e.g., shooting) to defend property and also in the next sentence about the right to defend property. Actually, the essential point and crucial distinction is that while you don't have a right to use _deadly_ force to defend property, you can use _nondeadly_ force to defend both personal and real property in your possession. Note: you can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a crime, if the crime is a "dangerous felony" involving risk to human life (e.g., robbery, arson, burglary of a dwelling, etc.).

The BARBRI bar review for Crim Law also verifies these principles. I'd be happy to give you some additional case citations, if that's what you're looking for.

Finally, I'd like to clarify the issue about the use of deadly force in the home. The issue is not that you have the right to use deadly force (remember we already said that you could use nondeadly force in this situation, but that's not what we are considering) to defend your property (your home), but that you do not have a requirement to _retreat_ when you are in your home, if you meet all the elements granting a self-defense justification, before you employ deadly force.

So, if you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of breaking glass, get out of bed, grab your shotgun and see a drooling escapee from the local mental hospital in your living room walking towards you armed with a butcher knife, you don't have to run - you can shoot the intruder. Remember: the majority of states have no duty to retreat if you meet the elements of self-defense, but even if you are in a state with a duty to retreat, you wouldn't have to in this case because you are in your own home. This is called the Castle Doctrine. It's not a defense of property per se because it only arises in regard to the duty to retreat.

Now imagine the same scenario but when you walk into the living room you see the maniac has broken both arms and a leg when he fell in a drug induced stupor through your window. He's essentially immobile and no threat and so you wouldn't be justified in shooting him, even though he has trespassed on your property.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to continue the conversation, if it still interests you. Personally, I find the subject fascinating.


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 13, 2004)

And I thought I was getting old when I turned 20 last month.  I remember the whole GI Joe thing when I was a lot younger. Hmmmmmm.


Just kidding, I was just surprised that anyone would quote GI Joe. NOt being mean just humored.

 :uhyeah:


----------



## howardr (Feb 13, 2004)

parkerkarate said:
			
		

> And I thought I was getting old when I turned 20 last month.  I remember the whole GI Joe thing when I was a lot younger. Hmmmmmm.
> 
> 
> Just kidding, I was just surprised that anyone would quote GI Joe. NOt being mean just humored.
> ...



Hey! It's true - knowing IS half the battle!!! Watch out or I'll sick Destro on you!


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 13, 2004)

LOL, ok good night then have a good Valentines Day everyone.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 15, 2004)

Howardr..

Awesome GI Joe reference, btw!  :boing2: 

I didn't think you were being "martial-paranoid" or a "hoplophobe" (someone with an irrational fear of weapons), but I had to make sure. You know how internet is.

I will say that I agree with you bringing up this subject. Even though I advocate knives for self defense, I have heard and seen far too often schools teaching throat slits from behind and overtly offensive manuvers without any discussion of the legalities of doing such a technique, or any discussion about the difference between "self defense" and "fighting" or "assasination." These instuctors aren't doing their students any favors.

Great post on the "defending the property issue!   Very informative. I would like to continue that discussion, because I am not very knowledgable on how defending property fits in with the whole scheme of things. I was familiar with the "castle" doctrine, but not the rest. So, in application, I have the right to defend my car from being vandalized, lets say, but I don't have the right to use lethal force to accomplish this. I can yell at the vandels or even push them away from my car and yell for them to stop, legally speaking. But, if one pulls a gun after I do this, then thats when lethal force may be justified. Is this kind of how it works for the most part, or am I misunderstanding a bit?

Also...are you done with law school or still going through it? I am thinking about getting my JD myself!

PAUL :asian:


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 15, 2004)

If you learn anatomy like I did it also helps to chose which places are instint kill spots and which are not. Of course we all learned that you twist the knife when you pull it out to either inlarge the wound or if he moves to still cut him. So anatomy can help you pick other places to not make the woud as lethal as a throat slit, or a cut to the femeral arterie (if I spelt that right). Just thought I would put that in there.


----------



## MJS (Feb 16, 2004)

There was an interesting article in the latest Black Belt magazine about knife defenses.  It pretty much said that a good majority of the defenses that are taught today, would probably get you killed if you tried to apply them in a real situation, and I have to say, that I agree with that 100%!  Its one thing to do a defense when you A) know what attack is coming at you, B)the attacker offers no resistance.  Doing the defense when you know and when you dont know are 2 very different things. 

I would think that picking something up that you can use, such as a chair, belt, stick, etc. would be a good thing.  

Using something that is gonna leave a mark, such as a marker, or a knife where something can be applied to the edges, will give you a better feel for what works and what does not.

Mike


----------



## kenpo_cory (Feb 16, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Hi ParkerKarate,
> 
> I think the discussion focused on tactical folders and smaller fixed blades (like Ayoob's model from Masters of Defense and some from Cold Steel) because those are really the only blades you could carry relatively inconspicuously where we live. I think it'd be fun to carry my Kukri, or a fighting Bowie, but unless I'm hunting bear I don't think I have an excuse. Doing so around town would bring PLENTY of unwanted attention.



Hmm, well where I live (Bend, OR) it is legal to carry very large swords and the like around with you as long as it's not concealed. I see people walking around down town and in the parks here carrying swords all the time. LOL I even saw a guy the other day walking down the road with a mid - sized axe trapped to his waste.


----------



## parkerkarate (Feb 16, 2004)

An axe, wow. I don't know what to say about that.


----------



## howardr (Feb 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Howardr..
> 
> So, in application, I have the right to defend my car from being vandalized, lets say, but I don't have the right to use lethal force to accomplish this. I can yell at the vandels or even push them away from my car and yell for them to stop, legally speaking. But, if one pulls a gun after I do this, then thats when lethal force may be justified. Is this kind of how it works for the most part, or am I misunderstanding a bit?
> 
> PAUL :asian:



I think you've got the general idea. Nondeadly force may be employed to defend your property. Deadly force may never (unless in conjunction with another defense that justifies deadly force) be used to defend property. Yelling, as such, I wouldn't even classify as force since there is no physical contact (save the sound waves which are likely in this scenario not to damage the hearing of the intended recipients). Pushing or even striking or holding may be justified depending on the scenario. Guess who's gonna decide that (after the police and prosecutors make their determination)? The jury. Guess what will be one of the jury's main determining factors in whether what you did is considered justified or not? Answer: whether a _reasonable_ man (or woman, of course) would have acted in such a way in the same situation. What is a "reasonable man?" Well, ya better go to law school for that one... 

This reasonable man test is one of the reasons that I raised the whole issue of knives in the first place. When your average person, who is not a martial artist, and is likely a bit squeamish, hears (and sees brutally graphic pictures) of the results of your knife work, it may make it considerably more difficult to empathize with you (esp. when they find out you train to do this very thing; they may feel that you are a bit too ready to deploy the knife). With a gun, of course, there is still that danger, but I'd guess that generally speaking the populace at large is more understanding of a person who defends themselves with a gun.


----------



## howardr (Feb 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Howardr,
> 
> But, I find that the techniques don't really matter. Using a knife is just like using a gun. To use the weapon, deadly force needs to be justified. This means that whether you only slash the hand of your attacker, or if you stab and rip his throat out with the blade, it is considered deadly force. So I find that the actual technique doesn't matter, its the use of the weapon or not.
> 
> ...



Strictly speaking that may be true. However, as I've stated several times, part of the legal outcome will come down to how what you did is perceived by the jury. Certainly, deadly force is deadly force, but just how elaborate your dissection of your opponent is will be taken into account by the jury as an indication of your state of mind (defensive vs. offensive, scared vs. gung-ho going overboard, etc.).


----------



## howardr (Feb 20, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> this thread developed too far before I could check it.
> 
> Howardr,
> 
> ...



Actually, I believe I said something quite similar to this in one of my first posts on the first page...


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 20, 2004)

Howardr...

Yup...Jury perception is a big factor that people training knives don't think about.

Also: 





> Actually, I believe I said something quite similar to this in one of my first posts on the first page...



Sounds good!  artyon:


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2004)

"A lot of people have CCW permits in my state. If someone trys to harm them and it is justifiable, they can pull their gun and shot that person. They may have a lot of explaining to do, but they will not get thrown in jail if lethal force is proven to have been justified."

It may actually be the case that you do get detained and jailed, until justification for deadly force is proven.  It could be that justification has to be decided in court.  

"You don't need a CCW permit to carry a knife under the legal limit, yet the standards are the same. If lethal force in justified, you can use your knife without legal repricussions."

The idea that the force continuum/penal code is the same is valid because force/deadly force is not contingent on the weapon, but the reasonableness of the threat, as well as the response.

The problem is that, because pistol permits might require a safety course or a background check, there is more 'credibility' to a firearm in force application than with what could be considered a 'hoodlum weapon'.  Perception/prejudice is a big issue when dealing with untrained, average citizens.  Harder than a knife would be justifying the use of a screwdriver (the next most common stabbing weapon in deadly force/violent incidence).  

Technically speaking, if medical examiner pictures of the injuries incurred are uses, which do you think would be more condeming:  Stab/puncture wounds or the slashing/filleting woulds? 

Me personally, stabs could be spun as intent to kill because of the penetration factor, but slashing wounds are more dramatic and scary looking.

Either way, get a good lawyer, get your money's in order and prepare to have to spend some time in a jail/holding center until bail is set and paid.  It could happen, until you can prove that you were justified.  Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that if you are suspected/charged that you will be let off or allowed to roam around - maybe run off.

Paul M

Paul M.


----------

