# Life Changing Attacks...Worth it or Not?



## 7starmantis (Apr 27, 2004)

This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.

I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.

Any ideas on this?

7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.
> 
> ...



Absolute agreement 7*, it is bad to 'think' at all as far as I am concerned.  I don't mean we should turn our brains off and become primal.  I do mean that we shouldn't be wondering "if" we should be doing something with thinking but should be working to assess, respond and get out of there.  OODA loops come to mind again.  

I think that a thorough understanding of penal laws dealing with justified force/deadly force injected into training is really the answer here.  Train responses that are appropriate so when you go on automatic, you are moving and shaking 'appropriately' in the moment anyway.  Understand the range of 'reasonable' in a given situation based on the law and you will know how far to go automatically.  Learn the language of reporting, it is never "I wanted to kick his... or I was so mad when he swung that pipe that I just...." It is ALWAYS the basic message of "I was in fear of my life, I tried to escape (or I couldn't get away without putting myself in further danger) and was forced to defend myself.  At the point where he/they/she/it no longer posed a direct threat, I ran and reported the incident as soon as possible and sought medical attention"

Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir....


----------



## someguy (Apr 27, 2004)

Return force with equal force.  If they attck you with a knife then should you not be able to do the same amount of damage to them.  
If they would kill you you can kill them.  It is better to let them live but still.  I'd rather lose an eye then die.  How about you?


----------



## Ceicei (Apr 27, 2004)

I agree with loki. We generally train in a martial style that is designed to inflict harm when necessary. For us who may possibly deal with a potential deadly situation, it is good, and imperative, that we know and understand the state/federal laws. If in other countries, be aware of their laws as well. 

That said, if there is imminent threat to me of losing my life, then what type of techniques would be "safe" to the attacker would be the least of my concerns.  I care only that I stay alive to return to my family, and if the end result may happen that the attacker no longer can see, his neck broken, or even loses his life, then so be it.  When it comes to life and death, the attacker is not going to fight fairly, so neither would I.

- Ceicei


----------



## someguy (Apr 27, 2004)

I hope I didn't sound to much like I was advocating killing the attacker or anything just saying do what you have to to survive if your life is threatened.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 27, 2004)

There are always things you can have decided before you ever fight. I think that air chokes are just asking to go to jail, so even in a fight for my life I will use a blood choke. I don't practice air chokes so I won't be fretting about weather or not to use them come fight time. As far as eye gouging and ripping ears off and what not, these moves are great if there open and the situation calls for it; however, one should consider what your goals are and what good will come of it. If you he is open for a knock out and your trying to poke his eyes, your priorities might be a little off. You should really be putting your best foot forward when possible. 
Sean


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 27, 2004)

when I was attacked, I didn't have time to think.  I just reacted.  When it was over, I couldn't even remember what exactly I'd done. I could pick out a few technique bits here and there, but nothing definite.  It was all kinda fuzzy.

Would I purposely hold back for fear of injuring my attacker?  HELL NO!

Could I get away with more simply because I'm female and the attacker was male?  probably.  society doesn't look very kindly on men that attack women in dark alleys.  Did that fact enter my mind during the situation?  Nope.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 27, 2004)

Well...as most things, it depends.

As a general rule, you never want to jeprodize your own safety, or the safety of who you are protecting (wife, child, etc.) for the sake of the attackers safety. On the other hand, you don't want to use excessive force and end up in jail. 

I think a good rule is the AOI rule, or "ability, opportunity, intent" rule. For me to use lethal force on my attacker, he must have the ability, opportunity, and intent to inflict great bodily harm or death to me or a loved one. If AOI isn't present, then I know that I can't justify lethal force in court. This means that I can't pull my knife or gun at all, and this means that I have to show some restraint in my defense, in as much that I am at least demonstrating that I am not intending to kill.

If a 140lb drunk guy tries to "fight" me unarmed, and I (about 220 or so) with my training put him in the hospital, I am looking at some serious legal problems. This is a fact, like it or not. If that same guy tries to fight me unarmed, and I shoot him in the head, or stab him with my EDC in the throat...then I had better invest in some soap on a rope.

So, if I am trained to pull my EDC (knife), for instance, I take a few precautions so I won't end up in jail. For one, I don't carry anything over the legal limit, and what I carry doesn't look threatening. I'll have a much easier time defending my use of an inch and a half blade executive folder over my use of my spiderco delecia any day. For two, I make sure I have trained so that my first reaction isn't to slit the attackers throat. My first reaction is to attack non-lethal areas like the hands and arms...or "defand the snake" as they call it in Filipino arts. Why? It not only protects my attacker, but it protects me. I'll have a lot easier of a time proving self defense in court if my entry wounds are on the arms in a manner that demonstrated that I tried to get away as he was attacking. These are just some things that I do with regards to using a weapon.

What if we are empty-handed? Well...how much training do YOU have? Can a prosecution attorney justify that you have enough training to be considered a lethal weapon? Are your attack patterns and the attackers wounds going to show that you were defending yourself, or that you were trying to kill your attacker?

These are tough arguements. A prosecuting attorney could make a reasonable arguement against you depending on the details. I try to use the AOI concept to help me decide my use of force. Example, when I was attacked in a well bounced bar, I treated it like a game (all except one time which was an exceptional case), or like a sparring match. I stayed calm, and I mostly tried to restrain my attacker so that with the help of the bouncers, I could get him outside, and let the cops and security take care of him. By staying calm, the bouncers knew that I wasn't the aggressor. In a bar that was well bounced, I would have a hard time justifying that he had the Opportunity to kill/maim me considering that he was unarmed and that there was security. Now, if I was attacked on the street by more then one person with NO ONE around me, then it's eye shots and bone breaks all the way (AOI was present).

Now, most people won't be able to think enough when they are attacked to assess AOI. Most of the time, you instinctual reaction will be fine. I don't think that anyone should restrain themselves to where they put themselves at risk. However, if you slam into your attackers eyes and goin, then stomp on his throat while he is down, and AOI isn't justified....well, good luck to you on that one. 

The thing is, we train for many reasons, self defense hopefully being one of them. Once you have the basics down, I'd add some tactical elements, such as assessing AOI, regardless of what art you study. The phrase, "I'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6" was once a very wise saying, but has been reduced by many as a means to justify copping out of using logic and good sound training methods, in my opinion.

So, I suggest training and self assessment so that recognizing AOI, and the appropriate response will become second nature. A little forethought goes a long way.

 :asian: 
PAUL


----------



## MJS (Apr 27, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.
> 
> ...



I agree!  I feel that if you use as much force as whats used against you, then you should be free to do whatever.  If the guy just pushes you, I dont think that poking out his eye is a good thing, but a joint lock or submission would be.  If he comes at you with a knife, then I see nothing wrong with breaking his arm.  Is there a  chance that you'll find yourself in court? Yup.  But you'll stand a much better chance if you can prove what you did was warranted.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 27, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Well...as most things, it depends.
> 
> As a general rule, you never want to jeprodize your own safety, or the safety of who you are protecting (wife, child, etc.) for the sake of the attackers safety. On the other hand, you don't want to use excessive force and end up in jail.
> 
> ...


speaking of knife fighting, my instructor showed us a trick. Rather than just killing your opponent with a throat shot or some other lethal move. You might try tapping the blade on your opponent. After you take enough divets out of their flesh and they chance a glance at the blood flow, they might just quit fighting. You'll wish you had considered it at trial. :uhyeah: 
Sean


----------



## 7starmantis (Apr 27, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> So, I suggest training and self assessment so that recognizing AOI, and the appropriate response will become second nature. A little forethought goes a long way.


I think that is a good rule to follow, the only problem being that in order to follow that rule you have to make quite a few assumptions. Opportunity is pretty clear cut, ability and intent are different stories altogether. If you are walking down a street with your wife and daughter and you get jumped by a mugger with a history of assault, I don't know a DA in the nation that would press for jail time. I don't think it is possible to determine the intent of an attacker once the attack has cominced. Before hand, maybe, but once the physical altercation is under way, I think its, end the threat of danger as quickly as possible. To do anything less I think is not only irresponsible if protecting someone else, but stupid as far as your life goes.

7sm


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 28, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> If he comes at you with a knife, then I see nothing wrong with breaking his arm.


 If he comes at you with a knife I see nothing wrong with double-tapping him in the head.  


			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> speaking of knife fighting, my instructor showed us a trick. Rather than just killing your opponent with a throat shot or some other lethal move. You might try tapping the blade on your opponent. After you take enough divets out of their flesh and they chance a glance at the blood flow, they might just quit fighting. You'll wish you had considered it at trial.
> Sean


It might work, but while you're wasting time "taking divots out of his flesh" to see if he doesn't like blood he may be taking divots out of _your_ flesh, or one of his buddies might be walking up behind you.

If you stop to think about how your trial is going to go when the guy pulls his knife your chances of walking away alive have just been severely decreased.

There have been some very good points made on this thread.  It is my oppinion that a martial-artist should, in most cases, be able to defuse the situation before a fight begins.  In other words, if you do end up in a fight it's either because you were "blindsided" or because your opponent had no intention of letting you walk away.  I know this is not always the case so I'm not going to disembowel every drunk that decides to prove how tough he is.  However, if I have already tried to de-escalate the situation and the person persists in presenting a threat, I'm going to do whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat.  Now common sense dictates that you not use any more force than is necessary, so once he no longer presents a threat, stop hitting/kicking/stabbing/shooting him.

P.S. read the second quote in my signature


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 28, 2004)

Another though, 
Many people voice concerns over the problems you will face with the legal system (both criminal and civil) if you are forced to defend yourself. For example, the homeowner that injures a burglar and is then sued for damages.  These are valid concerns, It shows the depths to which our so called "justice" system has fallen when the victim (you or I) is treated like the criminal, and the criminal gets rich because we gave him a boo-boo.  I have actually had more than one police officer tell me that if you are ever in a situation that requires/justifies the use of lethal force (gun, knife, etc.) you are better off to kill the person rather than just wound him so that he can't sue you.  It's sad (almost as sad as the fact that they get away with these bull#@%! lawsuits).
  Anyway, like I mentioned in my previous post, the legal ramifications of your actions, provided they were justified, should not be your concrern at the time of the incident.  All you should be concerned with is making sure you are the one who walks away alive.


----------



## MJS (Apr 28, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> Another though,
> Many people voice concerns over the problems you will face with the legal system (both criminal and civil) if you are forced to defend yourself. For example, the homeowner that injures a burglar and is then sued for damages.  These are valid concerns, It shows the depths to which our so called "justice" system has fallen when the victim (you or I) is treated like the criminal, and the criminal gets rich because we gave him a boo-boo.  I have actually had more than one police officer tell me that if you are ever in a situation that requires/justifies the use of lethal force (gun, knife, etc.) you are better off to kill the person rather than just wound him so that he can't sue you.  It's sad (almost as sad as the fact that they get away with these bull#@%! lawsuits).
> Anyway, like I mentioned in my previous post, the legal ramifications of your actions, provided they were justified, should not be your concrern at the time of the incident.  All you should be concerned with is making sure you are the one who walks away alive.



Youre right on that one.  Many of the lawsuits today are BULLS***!!  I cant seem to understand how a jury could press charges against YOU because you defended yourself in your own house!  Umm..Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I didnt invite this guy into my house at 2am.  So, what am I supposed to do? Let him rob me? Gee, maybe I should just open the front door for him and help him carry out my tv.

Mike


----------



## c2kenpo (Apr 28, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> Youre right on that one.  Many of the lawsuits today are BULLS***!!  I cant seem to understand how a jury could press charges against YOU because you defended yourself in your own house!  Umm..Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I didnt invite this guy into my house at 2am.  So, what am I supposed to do? Let him rob me? Gee, maybe I should just open the front door for him and help him carry out my tv.
> 
> Mike




Sry guys been out for 2 days. I think I started this thought somewhere. So let me put my 2 pennies in and why I stated that MA can make "Life Changing Decisions".

First,  MJS lets address a point u brought up, the bogus lawsuit. Why do people get away with them? Becasue there is always another side to the story. The beauty of our justice system is that is is designed to protect EVERYONE. No matter what the circumstances, unfortunatly the (we will say first offender) will feel that in some way they were attacked, demeaned, offended, or hurt in some way and need restitution. The jury of our peers and our law system has made for many loopholes. So to address the question of the attacker in your house suing or some other similar instance the rapist who go what he deserved, etc, etc.

Yes he broke the law breaking and entering.
Yes he broke the law by battery and assault.
Yes he broke the law by attempted rape or sexual misconduct.
Yes he broke the law by attempting to murder you.
However the other side of the story. (Some taken from legal cases)

 Did you have all your windows locked and doors secured No? You had one open for the breeze?
 Did you know that the defendant whom you broke sevral ribs is an asthma paitent? 
 Your supposed attacker says you had a few drinks together at the bar. Is this true?
 But you stabbed him with the knife and now he is dead. Who attacked who?

You see there is two sides to every story. 
Some great thoughts on this thread but here is what my meaning of the statment was this as follows.

What the original thread was discussing the validity of "cheap" shots groin , eyes, throat, etc. You can debate in any arena the validity of the argument however when I made the statement I was addressing some of the thoughts that I was reading as "overly agressive" and I wanted to remind the group that a martial artist is not just the ability to destroy "YIN" but a martial artist must have the ability to create "YANG".

We as martial artists have been given a wonderfull skill and art that can be shared with the world as many of us do in a positive manner. However the the antithesis of the martial artist is not just to be able to create a work of beauty but also to destroy. 
It is that ABILITY to destroy that only YOU can decide when it is appropriate. No one can be in your shoes at that precise moment. No one can presume to tell you what was going through your head. No one can feel the emotional response you had. Only YOU will be able to decide how you will react.

The awareness of your ability to destroy and create a "LIFE CHANGE" in someone is what every martial artist should simply be AWARE of. 
A "LIFE CHANGE" is when you harm someone in a way that forces them to readjust to a new way of life and comfort. Think of how YOU would have to adapt your life to the loss of an eye. Think of how YOU would have to adjust your lifestly to walking with a cane for the rest of your life. Think of how YOU would adjust to the loss of a loved one.

The reminder was that if you choose to use such force and impose a "LIFE CHANGE" YOU the martial artist must be willing to accept the great responsibilty that comes with that decision and face the consequences of that action as well emotionaly and mentaly.
Remember you make all the decisions of how, where, and when your battle will be fought most all of the time. Only YOU can see it YOUR way. 

Ed Parker Sr. said that there were three points of view. The Attackers, The Defender, and The Third Person. All three will see the exact same event differently. When it comes to the decision to inflict or impose a "LIFE CHANGE" it can only be viewed from YOUR eyes.

So to 7star and everyone else here whom I respect.
Life Changing Attacks...Worth it????



 :asian: Notice I left out the end intentionaly.
 :asian: "With great power comes great responsibility." ~Amazing Fantasy #14 

Dave


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 29, 2004)

c2Kenpo, you made some good points but I'm going to harp on this a little longer 



			
				c2Kenpo said:
			
		

> 1. Yes he broke the law breaking and entering.
> 2. Yes he broke the law by battery and assault.
> 3. Yes he broke the law by attempted rape or sexual misconduct.
> 4. Yes he broke the law by attempting to murder you.


These factors, when considered by the police, prosecutor, or jury (depending on how far it goes) will weigh heavily in your favor provided you can articulate that you acted in a reasonable manner based on the circumstances (unless of course you live in N.Y., Chicago, or some of the other more liberally minded places where they don't like the inconvienence of dealing with a person who is willing to protect him/herself and his/her family)



			
				c2Kenpo said:
			
		

> However the other side of the story. (Some taken from legal cases)
> 1. Did you have all your windows locked and doors secured No? You had one  open for the breeze?
> 2. Did you know that the defendant whom you broke sevral ribs is an asthma paitent?
> 3. Your supposed attacker says you had a few drinks together at the bar. Is this true?
> 4. But you stabbed him with the knife and now he is dead. Who attacked who?



1. It shouldn't matter, the criminal should be held solely responsible for his own actions whether my home is as secure as Fort Knox or not.  As I mentioned before, in the criminal procedings this probably won't be a factor.  However, this is exactly the type of issue that would come up in the subsequent civil suit.

2. Who cares?

3. Who said the guy is still capable of saying anything?  As I said in my last post, as sick as it sounds, you are better off eliminating the guy rather than leaving him alive to screw you later.  And, in the words of Benjaming Franklin: "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead."  If someone breaks into my home he's a dead man...period.

4. As long as you can articulate that you were in fear for your life and it is clear that the guy had the A.O.I. (Ability, Opportunity, and Intent like Paul mentioned a few posts back) to inflict death or serious physical harm, you will probably be okay, and as I mentioned in no. 3, you're going to be the only one telling the story (presuming, as we have been discussing, that the incident occured in your home).


Before you all start screaming about what a sick individual I am, let me say that I am not one of those idiots that's just looking for the opportunity to kill someone.  I value human life very highly and that is exactly the point, if someone poses a threat to myself or a member of my family I am going to eliminate the threat any way I can without worrying about whether his mother is going to miss him.  I also want to make it clear that I have a deep respect for law and order, I do not advocate vigilante justice.  However, the police cannot be there to protect you 24/7 (nor are they required to, but that's another discussion), therefore, people have to be willing to take care of themselves.  If it sounds like I have a problem with the justice system, it is for the most part, the _Civil_ system that I have issues with.  I think that 99.9% of the time, the civil system is just used by people who did something stupid, or in the context of this discussion, something illegal, and are trying to shift the responsibilty to an innocent party.

Anyway, just my $0.02...


----------



## 8253 (Apr 29, 2004)

a life or death situation leaves only one decision and thats who lives or dies it dosent really matter if you are sued.  It is better to go home and get sued than end up in a casket.  however if it were just a situation where you may be slightly hurt then there is more than one option.


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2004)

c2kenpo said:
			
		

> First,  MJS lets address a point u brought up, the bogus lawsuit. Why do people get away with them? Becasue there is always another side to the story. The beauty of our justice system is that is is designed to protect EVERYONE. No matter what the circumstances, unfortunatly the (we will say first offender) will feel that in some way they were attacked, demeaned, offended, or hurt in some way and need restitution. The jury of our peers and our law system has made for many loopholes. So to address the question of the attacker in your house suing or some other similar instance the rapist who go what he deserved, etc, etc.
> 
> Yes he broke the law breaking and entering.
> Yes he broke the law by battery and assault.
> ...



I see what you're saying.  I'll address each one of the above seperately.

1- I shouldnt and wont be a prisoner in my own home!  So what if I had the window open, I still didnt invite this guy to enter my home through it.  I'm not entitled to get air?

2- Medical problem?? Thats not my issue.  

3- I guess the bar owner and anyone else that was in that bar, will be called as a witness.

4- At 2am, how am I supposed to know if he's unarmed or not?  Regardless, I did NOT tell him to come to my home at 2am, and he deserves what he gets.  Hes doing something, knowing, or at least he should know, that there could be a serious effect on him, by what hes doing.  No different than running a red light.  We all have done it.  We are taking a BIG chance that there is no police officer at the intersection, that the traffic, that thinks I'm stopping, will take the time to stop to let me by. As for me killing him...again, if during the confrontation, a weapon is shown by him, I never said that I'd kill him.  Breaking his arm, sure.  All depends on the situation.




> What the original thread was discussing the validity of "cheap" shots groin , eyes, throat, etc. You can debate in any arena the validity of the argument however when I made the statement I was addressing some of the thoughts that I was reading as "overly agressive" and I wanted to remind the group that a martial artist is not just the ability to destroy "YIN" but a martial artist must have the ability to create "YANG".
> 
> We as martial artists have been given a wonderfull skill and art that can be shared with the world as many of us do in a positive manner. However the the antithesis of the martial artist is not just to be able to create a work of beauty but also to destroy.
> It is that ABILITY to destroy that only YOU can decide when it is appropriate. No one can be in your shoes at that precise moment. No one can presume to tell you what was going through your head. No one can feel the emotional response you had. Only YOU will be able to decide how you will react.
> ...



Looks like the thread got off the track a little!  Again, I still stand by my theory.  Is it the best one? Nope, its just my opinion.  IMO, nothing is cheap.  However, its up to the person doing the so called 'cheap shot' that needs to take HIS actions into consideration.  Its no different than a cop pulling his gun.  He knows, or should know, the results that can happen as a result of doing that.  The cop shoots an armed suspect coming at him with a knife, after repeated warnings to stop....well, if the guy that breaks into my house, turns, and runs out the door, after he sees me, well then great.  If not, then he deserves what he gets.  If its a broken nose, a lost eye, etc. then that is something that he'll have to live with for the rest of his life.  My job is to protect my life as well as my family, and I should not have to submit to someone entering my house without my permission.

Mike


----------



## 7starmantis (Apr 29, 2004)

c2kenpo said:
			
		

> Yes he broke the law breaking and entering.
> Yes he broke the law by battery and assault.
> Yes he broke the law by attempted rape or sexual misconduct.
> Yes he broke the law by attempting to murder you.
> ...




These are good points, so I'll address them individually as well.

1-4. Yes He/She broke the law, there isn't anything else to it. The legality of these actions demands punishment.

Otherside of the story:
1. Having a window open, or even a door open doesn't negate your right to privacy even against a police officer with a sworn search warrant. The security of your house is not an issue because it is still your property, even if you lived in a cardboard box on your own land it would be the same.

2. The medical condition of the attacker isn't admissible because unless he/she made an effort to leave or made an effort to make you aware of this condition you had no prior knowledge. Its the same for emergency medical personnel, if they do something to help someone and because of a condition it hurts them, they are not liable unless the were made aware of the condition prior to administering help. In the case of B&E I don't think even becoming aware of the condition would do much to sway a jury.

3. The only way I could think of this having any relevance is if the two of you left together and they were attempting to prove you guys entered the house together and then you attacked him/her. If they broke in your house that theory would be moot. 

4. Stabbing with a knife, shooting with a gun, striking with a blunt object they are the same end result. If the attacker broke into your house that isn't going to come into play. I say broke in because the police can see how the attacker entered and know it was a break in and not that you allowed them in. In that situation its clear who attacked who and in reality it doesn't matter much inside your place of residence. Especially in Texas with the "make my day" law.

7sm


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> c2Kenpo, you made some good points but I'm going to harp on this a little longer
> 
> These factors, when considered by the police, prosecutor, or jury (depending on how far it goes) will weigh heavily in your favor provided you can articulate that you acted in a reasonable manner based on the circumstances (unless of course you live in N.Y., Chicago, or some of the other more liberally minded places where they don't like the inconvienence of dealing with a person who is willing to protect him/herself and his/her family)
> 
> ...



You dont have to worry about me screaming at you, because I agree 100% with you.

Mike


----------



## c2kenpo (Apr 29, 2004)

I think you guys missed the point of what I was saying once again. But I may not have been clear about it. So let me try in shorter less verbose terms.
As far as the legal ramifications I was simply using metaphor for example.

I will NEVER contradict what ANYONE here says they will do if "X" happens. Why? Because I am not them. Simple you can make your own choices and I mine. But the thread was Life Changing Attacks and are they worth it or not.

My reason for my statement was AGRESSIVE THOUGHT PATTERNS that were being shared in the previous thread.

Here would be an example...
Bar / resturante etc...spilled drink leads to verbal exchange on both sides, escalating into a fight. Who strikes who and the details of who swung first, and where are IRRELEVANT to the topic.
He swings....and you have an ARSENAL of martial arts training that lets you make the next decision. But you have been arguing and you are EMOTIONALLY involved in the situation now. Do you have the right to make a LIFE CHANGE then? Even tho a bottle or club may have been involved. The next question to give thought is, Are you prepared to accept the harsh reality of that choice.

If you were attacked, home invaded, attempted rape, etc...I would EXPECT nothing less than the posts I have read on this board. I too am a father and husband and quite the right sided person on crime and punishment. I am not questioning the validity of someones right to defend themselvs as they saw fit, I would not want my judgement questioned either when it came to the safety of my family.

I hope everyone can see that what I was asking was to look at the situation of your fight / attack and see what we CAN DO and what we CHOOSE to do. Just another way of expanding your own martial art.

I hope that helps in understanding what my thoughts were.

David Gunzburg


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2004)

c2kenpo said:
			
		

> > Here would be an example...
> > Bar / resturante etc...spilled drink leads to verbal exchange on both sides, escalating into a fight. Who strikes who and the details of who swung first, and where are IRRELEVANT to the topic.
> > He swings....and you have an ARSENAL of martial arts training that lets you make the next decision. But you have been arguing and you are EMOTIONALLY involved in the situation now. Do you have the right to make a LIFE CHANGE then? Even tho a bottle or club may have been involved. The next question to give thought is, Are you prepared to accept the harsh reality of that choice.
> 
> ...


----------



## c2kenpo (Apr 29, 2004)

Great Mike. 

I was seeing a BIG CONFUSION BUBBLE. Sometimes I confuse myself.

In every situation it is different and how we react and what we choose to do is tantamount to the end results. I was speaking on the moral obligation that we have with the knowledge base we contain to simply look beyond the event and see the bigger picture.

If you see "X" force, how you choose to apply return force is your choice. Leads back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, points of viewetc....topic for another thread.
If you just give him a bop in the nose and that works then great!
But if you WANT to graft 5-6 techs together on the same guy then here are a few of my PERSONAL favorites..(pulling sheet of paper out of notebook)

 :uhyeah: 

David Gunzburg


----------



## MJS (Apr 29, 2004)

C2Kenpo-

I confuse myself at times too! :idunno: LOL!  Speaking of another topic....(the toruble maker that I am) you mentioned different view points.  I think it'd be kind of interesting to discuss what the other people who happen to witness this situation unfold, would think.  I mean, if it did go to a jury, and witnesses from the bar are called to the stand, what do you think that their outlook on the situation would be?

Mike


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 29, 2004)

Somewhere on MT I posted a reply which contains Stephen R. Donaldson's "Oath Of Peace" from the Thomas Covenant series. 
Do a quick search on "Oath Of Peace" and you'll see a method I use to help determine "how far I should go" when attacked. 
I've been the victim of several violent crimes before and had to use my skills to allow me posting here today. I didn't care at the moment what I was doing to my attacker as long as WHAT I was doing was going to S-T-O-P them from what they were wanting to do to me... hurt/kill me. 
I haven't been attacked in a very-very long while because I've learned how to watch and ward myself from being placed into such situations. I've also learned the "Bugs Bunny" method of talking my way out of (almost) anything.
A friend of mine at work gotten into an altercation recently. One that required him punching his assailant hard enough to break his hand. What was left of the "other - guy" had the police asking (my friend) why did he have to take it that far. He replied non-committedly that the guy swung at him and he was defending himself...but I told him to next time tell the cops that the guy wouldn't stop. They'll usually understand that concept. 
Again, I'll state that no-one person knows for 100% certianty what they will do in any given situation. They can plan, train, practice, reflect, imagine, ponder, wonder and even fantasize what could happen and/or how they'll respond. But when the push comes... the outcome (read: Reality) is usually very different. IMO, the main reason is you just can-not predict (for 100% certianty) what the other guy will do. In the dojo, practice, sparring... sure you got a better idea. But out there....
Do what you have to do but go only as far as necessary to stop the assailant from doing what they wanted to do to you. If killing is necessary  then so be it. You have to be the judge of when to do that.

 :asian:


----------



## 8253 (Apr 30, 2004)

This is interesting, seeing both sides of the story.  I usually do look at both sides of the story however when a person is being physically attacked they have the right to defend themselves to the extent that the threat is removed up to and including deadly force.  As far as the attackers ailments the dumb*** shouldnt have been trying to attack someone in the first place.  If he gets broken ribs during one of his attacks oh well, he still shouldnt be trying to attack someone.  The attacker shouldnt be around your house looking for an open window to climb into to attack you or he might get broken ribs.  As far as them having a drink with you earlier, it still dosent give them the right to attack you now.  The bottom line is if someone attacks you it dosent matter what kind of shape they are in at the end as long as you can go home without injury you have survived the encounter the right way.  If they want to sue me later, let them, who cares.  I will still have my health and my family at the end.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 30, 2004)

7starmantis: what is the "make my day law?"  I'm originally from Texas and this is one I'm not familiar with (note: I'm not questioning your accuracy, just trying to clarify the term).


----------



## c2kenpo (Apr 30, 2004)

MJS said:
			
		

> C2Kenpo-
> 
> I confuse myself at times too! :idunno: LOL!  Speaking of another topic....(the toruble maker that I am) you mentioned different view points.  I think it'd be kind of interesting to discuss what the other people who happen to witness this situation unfold, would think.  I mean, if it did go to a jury, and witnesses from the bar are called to the stand, what do you think that their outlook on the situation would be?
> 
> Mike



Mike, that was the thread I was working on but a bit stuck on how to really implement it. The biggest problem I have to begin that thread is "Who's on first??"
How do you see it...etc..maybe we have to pick something from current events ..this is really going to take some thought. 

Better get some more coffee.  

Dave Gunzburg


----------



## 7starmantis (Apr 30, 2004)

I guess I addressed the situation like I do all fighting situations. To me, if your involved in a fight its because of either one of two things. You were attacked and didn't have time to try and de-escilate the situation or you are in the wrong. It sounds harsh but the example of the spilled drink and words being exchanged...that is where I become liable, did I return those words? If so, I am a little to blame for the fight as well, and in that case breaking the law myself by fighting. When I talk about being attacked I just allways assume it the first of the two reasons. I'll get up and move if I have to to avoid a fight at a bar, why not?



			
				kenpotex said:
			
		

> 7starmantis: what is the "make my day law?" I'm originally from Texas and this is one I'm not familiar with (note: I'm not questioning your accuracy, just trying to clarify the term).


I'll have to go find the actual code for the law to be precise, but basically it was a law put into place that loosens the responsibility of deadly force inside a residence. We just finished studying it in my government class and we went over it in my concieled handgun course as well. It gives the home owner the right to shoot and kill an intruder inside the home during all hours of the day or night with or without an armed attacker. There are stipulations, but a buddy of mine who works for the FBI made the joke that it is better if you kill someone to drag them into your house in texas so you dont go to jail.

Basically it says the law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there. I think some other states have similar laws....kansas maybe?


7sm


----------



## c2kenpo (Apr 30, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I guess I addressed the situation like I do all fighting situations. To me, if your involved in a fight its because of either one of two things. You were attacked and didn't have time to try and de-escilate the situation or you are in the wrong. It sounds harsh but the example of the spilled drink and words being exchanged...that is where I become liable, did I return those words? If so, I am a little to blame for the fight as well, and in that case breaking the law myself by fighting. When I talk about being attacked I just allways assume it the first of the two reasons. I'll get up and move if I have to to avoid a fight at a bar, why not?
> 
> 7sm




DING!! 7sm that is EXACTLY what this thread should have been about. 
 :asian: 
Great post.

Dave Gunzburg


----------



## KenpoTex (May 1, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'll have to go find the actual code for the law to be precise, but basically it was a law put into place that loosens the responsibility of deadly force inside a residence. We just finished studying it in my government class and we went over it in my concieled handgun course as well. It gives the home owner the right to shoot and kill an intruder inside the home during all hours of the day or night with or without an armed attacker.
> Basically it says the law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there. I think some other states have similar laws....kansas maybe?
> 7sm


Gotcha...This is also referred to in many places as the "castle doctrine" ("a man's home is his castle") and is part of the law in many places, including Missouri where I live now.  I believe (as with most of our laws) that it dates back to an old English law regarding the defense of your home.  



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> There are stipulations, but a buddy of mine who works for the FBI made the joke that it is better if you kill someone to drag them into your house in texas so you dont go to jail.


As far as dragging someone inside your house, that's kind of "iffy." I have heard the same statement tossed around by people (including LEO's) that I have known but they're not speaking literally.  For one thing, why did you kill him outside your house? I'm not saying that you'll never be threatened when you're sitting on your front porch, but if you drag him inside it's going to be obvious that you tampered with the (alleged) crime-scene.  When you hear comments like this the implication is that you are better off if you _were_ inside your home, not that you should actually drag them in.


----------



## marshallbd (May 1, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.
> 
> ...


I think in an actual life or death struggle, you have everyright to defend yourself to the fullest extent using WHATEVER means is necessary to END the encounter (preferable by leaving as soon as the attacker is unable to follow)  If you can demonstrate that you left as soon as the attack ended you'll be fine.  I dont know much technique but If I am attacked I will do whatever it takes to walk away and deal with the "sue you" mentality at that time.  That being said, I will ALWAYS use de-escalation attempts such as non-threatening stances and verbal que's such as a calm voice and calming language to walk away without the violence. :asian:


----------



## 7starmantis (May 1, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> As far as dragging someone inside your house, that's kind of "iffy." I have heard the same statement tossed around by people (including LEO's) that I have known but they're not speaking literally. For one thing, why did you kill him outside your house? I'm not saying that you'll never be threatened when you're sitting on your front porch, but if you drag him inside it's going to be obvious that you tampered with the (alleged) crime-scene. When you hear comments like this the implication is that you are better off if you _were_ inside your home, not that you should actually drag them in.


Yeah, I didn't mean for anyone to take this literally, like I said, he was saying it jokingly.

7sm


----------



## Cyrus (Jun 6, 2004)

I fight based on a the rules that my attacker makes up he/she (although i don't know if i could physically bring myself to attack a female even in self defense.)
makes the rules for me they want to fight with no weapons fine by me none 1on1 thats fine too. I go "all out" so to speak whenever the odds are against me attacker has weapon, more than one attacker, attacker likes to bite, gouge eyes ect... other than that i try to keep it as nonlethal and/or nondetrimental to the persons existence in the longrun as possible. Meaning keep limbs intact, no permanent damage to vital areas. I still fight like i would normally but that minute bit of restraint that keeps me from using any of the above attacks is what keeps me seperated from others.. and from jail.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jun 6, 2004)

The only problem I have with that method is once your opponent decides to take the fight to that next "level" your eye may already be gouged out, or your throat slashed, or knee broken. Everything is riding on a huge "IF" you can defend their attack first and then deliver one of your own.

7sm


----------



## FasterthanDeath (Jun 10, 2004)

When it comes to getting attacked, its all about the threat of force. If a man has no weapons and just attacks me out of anger, drunkeness, or wants my possesions I do what I can to get away. Thats all you can do. You do just the amount of force to get away. And thats what you stick by. If poking his/her eye out allows you to get away, you get away. Same with breaking their arm. But if they have a weapon. I feel that they are trying to kill me. So I will do what is necessary to disarm them and get away. But if they persue, I will have to kill them first. But in the many bar brawls and street fights I have been in, noone gets past a broken limb. Thats ususally the "breaking" point. No pun intended.


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 10, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.
> 
> 7sm


I would never hold back a technique if the other person had a weapon. That is true life and death stuff, no reason to hold back if they are willing to kill/severely injure you. If they don't have a weapon, I would have to judge it by how much of a threat they are, big muscular guy gets less courtesy than a little punk. This is all assuming I keep my head about me.


----------



## ppko (Jun 10, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.
> 
> ...


Life or death do what you have to do to survive.

PPKO


----------

