# To Shin Do Video Clip on Youtube!



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 25, 2006)

Here is a clip on Stephen Hayes art of To Shin Do.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Nov 25, 2006)

For all their talk of training in accordance with self defense legalities, they sure seem to like to hit people when they're already lying down...


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 25, 2006)

That stuck out at me as well. This type of clip can be a danger. If one of his students is involved in some sort of attack, the scumbag's lawyer could try to use this as "proof" that _they were trained_ to hit people when they were down on the ground and not a threat. There have been cases where people have defended themselves and later been sued for doing so. If you have something like this floating around, it really helps the scumbag to paint a picture of a mad dog martial artist who was just hoping for a chance to go off on some poor person and went overboard.


----------



## Darksoul (Nov 25, 2006)

-Having heard of Stephen Hayes, though not being familiar with his work, my question would be this: is he teaching battlefield techniques? As in take your enemy down and finish him off? That would make sense to me for all the hits on the person when they're down in the video. Certainly a person could train for that though hopefully if they're in a fight, he or she will only take it as far as necessary. Just a thought.

A--->


----------



## Jade Tigress (Nov 25, 2006)

Interesting clip and thoughts. I know nothing about To Shin Do but how does what they were doing differ from a follow-up? Isn't it normal to teach follow-up techniques? 

I know one person who is a black belt in To Shin Do. He received his bb in Japan from Hatsumi. I have never seen him demonstrate anything but I am aware of several times that he was bullied as a young adult (I'm thinking he probably around 20 or so at the time) and he did nothing to defend himself. He had been already been training for quite some time when this was occuring. One time he landed in the hospital with a broken jaw. All that to say, I don't know what the philosophy of the art is, but I found it odd that he did never used any of his martial arts training to defend himself against this group.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 25, 2006)

Darksoul said:


> -Having heard of Stephen Hayes, though not being familiar with his work, my question would be this: is he teaching battlefield techniques? As in take your enemy down and finish him off?



That does not seem to be what he tries to portray his art as. With his use of pads and modern training techniques, he seems to be  trying to make it a valid, self defense art for the modern age. But this clip is suicide in a court case after having to use this stuff.

And Jade Tigress, you will have to ask your friend. I don't know why someone would not use what they had learned in that situation.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 25, 2006)

If I saw the same clip, it appears that the attacker still had a knife in his hand after the takedowns. With the defender only with a stick, I think the disarms were warrented even with the attacker on the ground.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Nov 25, 2006)

In that case, there are better targets for multiple follow-up stick strikes than the torso.


----------



## Shizen (Nov 26, 2006)

"For all their talk of training in accordance with self defense legalities, they sure seem to like to hit people when they're already lying down..."

Looks that way. I can see it being useful if there were more than one attacker you were dealing with, in which case a blow to the face to "keep them down" may be needed to ensure that he won't get back up and help his friends take you down. However that is not the way it has been portrayed here and i think it could have done a better job in that.


----------



## Don Roley (Nov 26, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> If I saw the same clip, it appears that the attacker still had a knife in his hand after the takedowns. With the defender only with a stick, I think the disarms were warrented even with the attacker on the ground.



No.

First guy does a great example of a legal defense. The attacker still has the knife in his hand and is taken down. No beating after the guy is down but the hand holding the knife is controlled. The next guy and the guy after that clearly are beating on someone without a knife in their hand or having the knife hand in control. The third guy is Hayes. So that is the standard that all Toshindo folks will be judged by in a court of law. Hayes is clearly beating on someone on the ground even though they can't get him with their knife because he has control of that hand.

Just let some lawyer get thier hands on this clip and Toshindo folks that send someone to the hospital will have to pay several thousands of dollars in legal fees and hope they get off with just that.


----------



## lalom (Nov 29, 2006)

Any lawyers here?  Or is this personal opinion?


----------



## saru1968 (Nov 29, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> I know one person who is a black belt in To Shin Do. He received his bb in Japan from Hatsumi.


 
Not to split hairs but....

I doubt he got his Toshindo 'shodan' maybe his Bujinkan 'Shodan' in Japan.


----------



## Bigshadow (Nov 29, 2006)

Interesting...


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> No.
> 
> First guy does a great example of a legal defense. The attacker still has the knife in his hand and is taken down. No beating after the guy is down but the hand holding the knife is controlled. The next guy and the guy after that clearly are beating on someone without a knife in their hand or having the knife hand in control. The third guy is Hayes. So that is the standard that all Toshindo folks will be judged by in a court of law. Hayes is clearly beating on someone on the ground even though they can't get him with their knife because he has control of that hand.
> 
> Just let some lawyer get thier hands on this clip and Toshindo folks that send someone to the hospital will have to pay several thousands of dollars in legal fees and hope they get off with just that.


 
Heh, OK. I'd have to rewatch it. Those fuzzy little web vids don't always come across clear. But this stirs up the whole legal thing about self defense. Anyone know if there is a lot of precedence in these types of things? I think it varies state to state here in the US.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 30, 2006)

With what I do, I know a little bit more about legalities then the average person, but I am not an attorney. I have consulted with attorneys regarding similar issues, however.

My opinion:

For one, the criteria for use of force is that you can continue until the attacker stops. Being on the ground, whether you put the attacker there or not, doesn't necessarily mean that the attacker has "stopped." Plus, if the attacker has a knife (and in those clips the knife was often still in the hand of the attacker while the uke was on the ground) then that is a lethal force scenario. One could argue that as long as the attacker was willing to fight, you had to continue your defense (hitting him with your cane while trying to control the knife hand in this case) because with access to a knife, letting the attacker off the ground to continue his onslaught opens you up to grave bodily damage or death. One could argue that that is what they were practicing on the video.

Now, on the other hand, one could expect that the opposing attorney will use anything available to discredit the defendant, including any martial arts footage that might seem incriminating. Pocket folders become "military knives," training for self-defense becomes "mercinary or militia or terrorist training," video games or scary movies or the latest issue of SWAT magazine makes you "obsessed with violence," and on and on and on. If you ever end up in court for using force, about the only thing you can count on is the opposing council using every tactic they can to paint a horrible picture of you.  

So what is the right answer? There isn't one. You could never put video footage out there and never let anyone see you train, and the opposing attorney could argue that you are training in secret to be a mercinary, and that you were a mutual combatant who goaded their client into a fight so you could use your mercinary skills. And no, I am not kidding.

Point? There is no black and white answer, as it comes down to the totality of the evidence, reasonableness, and most importantly, who's attorney can "beat up" who in the courtroom. 

There are only certain things that are clear ethical violations that could pose a serious legal problem to the trainers down the line, but I wouldn't say that this footage would fall into that category.

Paul


----------



## ginshun (Nov 30, 2006)

I think you guys are reading a little bit much into the hitting after the guy is down.  Who teaches that once a guy hits the ground the threat is gone?  Nobody that I have ever heard of.

Plus nobody here actually knows the context of the situation being trained.  I would venture to guess that if a guy is coming after you with a knife its a pretty damn serious situation and you could probably get away with hitting him in the ribs if you manage to throw him without getting killed.

I'm no lawyer, but I doubt a jury is going to convict me of anything for hitting a guy in the ribs after he tries to stab me.

Yup, I just watched all the vids again, and didnt' see anythign that I would consider exsessive use of force.  A hit to the ribs of a guy that just attacked to with a knife is not excessive IMO, and that is all I saw happening.

Seems like a case of Buj guys being overly critical of Hayes, but I could be wrong.


----------



## lalom (Nov 30, 2006)

Thank you Paul.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 1, 2006)

lalom said:


> Any lawyers here?  Or is this personal opinion?



If you liked what Paul wrote, you should listen to what he said about what the other attorny would try to do to you. 



> Now, on the other hand, one could expect that the opposing attorney will use anything available to discredit the defendant, *including any martial arts footage* that might seem incriminating.



I take it from your quote that you will do whatever you want unless someone with a law degree tells you it is bad.

Well, I have a lawyer on retainer. I have talked and been lectured by a prosecuting attorney by the name of Alain Buresse as well as studying the works of Masaad Ayoob and talking with a former prececuter. What have you done to determine that you are safe legally?

As Paul said, the lawyer facing you will use anything to try to make you look bad and maybe put you away or take a lot of cash from you. That includes looking on the internet for anything that might indicate you were trained to hit people on the ground. They only have to convice a jury that you were out of bounds. And stuff like this looks bad. Yes, there may be times when you need to hit someone on the ground- but putting in on the internet so you can face it later in court is another matter. There are other things that could have been put up in its place.

Ask anyone who has faced the legal system after defending themselves. It can cost you thousands of dollars even if you stay out of jail. Whoever put this clip on the internet made a bit harder for students to cover themselves legally in the future. If you do not want to believe me, then do the research yourself since it will be your own freedom at stake if it comes down to it.

But whatever you do, don't think that just because you did not do anything wrong that you will be ok. Talk to a lawyer _before_ you get into trouble.

Start by readingthis page.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 1, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Masaad Ayoob



He appears on every episode of Personal Defense TV and as I have indicated in the link they often talk about this type of thing. In episode seven (see Post #14) he talks about what to say to the police when they arrive on the scene and how important it is to lay the groundwork for the coming legal aftermath by choosing your words carefully. He uses a five-point framework of what to say to the police, including an emphasis on saying very soon "I will sign a complaint (against the other person)" to start them thinking that you are the victim here despite still being standing.



> As Paul said, the lawyer facing you will use anything to try to make you look bad and maybe put you away or take a lot of cash from you. That includes looking on the internet



And you'll be compelled during discovery to identify where, and under what user names, you have posted.

I wish I had a link to the Black Belt article from many years ago detailing just how many tens of thousands of dollars the well-known TKD instructor Hee Il Cho paid in the 1970s for breaking the teeth of someone who attacked him in his school. He won the battle...


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 1, 2006)

saru1968 said:


> Not to split hairs but....
> 
> I doubt he got his Toshindo 'shodan' maybe his Bujinkan 'Shodan' in Japan.




I have no idea. I don't know anything about Toshindo and Bujinkan, I'm sure my terminology is wrong. I don't know him well, he is the son of a close friend but I don't see her often. All I know is he has been training at a Quest center for years and travelled to Japan a couple years ago with his instructor and some other students. Apparently he didn't know he would be receiving his bb. The story I have is he was asked to demonstrate and was then presented with his bb by Hatsumi. I do not have details, this is all second hand from his mother, and I don't really care. It just struck me as odd when he was getting his butt kicked all over the place when he was already a quite a few years into training.


----------



## ginshun (Dec 1, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> I have no idea. I don't know anything about Toshindo and Bujinkan, I'm sure my terminology is wrong. I don't know him well, he is the son of a close friend but I don't see her often. All I know is he has been training at a Quest center for years and travelled to Japan a couple years ago with his instructor and some other students. Apparently he didn't know he would be receiving his bb. The story I have is he was asked to demonstrate and was then presented with his bb by Hatsumi. I do not have details, this is all second hand from his mother, and I don't really care. It just struck me as odd when he was getting his butt kicked all over the place when he was already a quite a few years into training.



I think the line between Toshindo and Bujinkan was blurred for a few years.  I have heard that you could be ranked in the Bujinkan and ToShinDo while training at Quest Centers.  Whether this is true anymore with the recent (apparent?) split between SKH and the Bujinkan I have no idea.

I have also heard several stories of people being ranked to shodan while in Japan training with Hatsumi.  I have no idea if its a common thing, but it does happen, or so I have heard.  Don and some others here probably have first hand knowledge of it happening or not, so I will defer to them on that one.

I guess what I am saying is that your story sounds believable to me, but saru is probably correct in that if he did get his shodan in Japan from Hatsumi, then it was a shodan in Bujinkan, not ToShinDo, as Hatsumi has nothing at all to do with TSD.  It is entirely possible I suppose that whoever his TSD teacher was honored the rank given by Hatsumi and he recieved his TSD shodan at the same time.

Regardless of the specifics, its an interesting story.  Makes you wonder how many people there are running around out there that are ranked in both the Bujinkan and Toshindo while oly training at one school.  Or how many there are that are certified to teach both arts.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 1, 2006)

ginshun said:


> I think the line between Toshindo and Bujinkan was blurred for a few years.  I have heard that you could be ranked in the Bujinkan and ToShinDo while training at Quest Centers.  Whether this is true anymore with the recent (apparent?) split between SKH and the Bujinkan I have no idea.
> 
> I have also heard several stories of people being ranked to shodan while in Japan training with Hatsumi.  I have no idea if its a common thing, but it does happen, or so I have heard.  Don and some others here probably have first hand knowledge of it happening or not, so I will defer to them on that one.
> 
> ...



Yeah, he never specified a style. It's my error. I just assumed it was Toshindo because it was under Hayes. I'm sure you're right and it was Bujinkan. Like I said, I am clueless about it, please forgive the faux pas.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2006)

Jade Tigress said:


> Interesting clip and thoughts. I know nothing about To Shin Do but how does what they were doing differ from a follow-up? Isn't it normal to teach follow-up techniques?



I don't know specifically about Toshindo, and I won't speak for the majority of bujinkan schools, but in OURS... without going into specific details, we are taught as a follow up that once you get the guy down, if its safe to do so... MOVE... flee... get to saftey as our follow up, or, failing that, to Immobilize the guy in a way that you can still be safe until you can get help... it doesnt usually entail pounding the guy on the ground.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Dec 1, 2006)

Cryozombie said:


> I don't know specifically about Toshindo, and I won't speak for the majority of bujinkan schools, but in OURS... without going into specific details, we are taught as a follow up that once you get the guy down, if its safe to do so... MOVE... flee... get to saftey as our follow up, or, failing that, to Immobilize the guy in a way that you can still be safe until you can get help... it doesnt usually entail pounding the guy on the ground.




Makes sense. Thanks Cryo.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 1, 2006)

I think you guys are reading a bit too much into this short clip. Jus because you have thrown somebody to the ground doesnt mean the fights over so I have no problem with training follow-up techniques. All we are seeing here is technique, we know nothing about what they teach in regards to legal issues. As far as attorneys, even minus the follow-up techniques Im fairly certian that a lawyer would still find something to hammer you on. If you base your training entirely on what some lawyer is going to say after the fact you better hang it all up now. Survival is job #1, as long as you can explain you actions and why they seemed reasonable you shoul be ok. You can always get sued.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 1, 2006)

Monadnock said:


> Heh, OK. I'd have to rewatch it. Those fuzzy little web vids don't always come across clear. But this stirs up the whole legal thing about self defense. Anyone know if there is a lot of precedence in these types of things? I think it varies state to state here in the US.


First disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor am I providing legal advice.  I'm just a working cop with some idea of how things like this might play out.  Nothing I say here should be construed as legally binding or legal guidance or advice.  The best and only legal advice I give is to consult an attorney with experience in the area and your courts.

Second disclaimer: I don't train in Toshindo, Budo Taijutsu or anything else more related than being an Eastern martial art.

Now that those are out of the way...

Self defense is basically a claim you make to explain why you committed a crime or tort (civil wrong/basis of a civil suit).  You're saying "I did it -- but I had a good reason and shouldn't be punished for it."  So, you're limited to what is reasonable in the light of the circumstances.  Looking at one extreme end, my sister-in-law who is under 5 feet tall, and doesn't break 100 lbs soaking wet would be justified in using more force -- even up to lethal force -- against someone than I would or, to reach the other extreme, whatever huge super heavy weight mixed martial arts fighter you care to name.  A lot comes down to how you explain what you did; "He was charging at me, and he had a machete, so I shot him" makes a much stronger case than "I saw the guy a block away and he had a machete, so I shot him."   Or, to use the examples in the video, "the guy had a knife, and even after I knocked him to the ground, he wouldn't let go of it and was still trying to get loose" would be more likely to justify more or continued use of force than "the guy had a knife, and I knocked him to the ground, and was standing on the knife hand when I struck him repeatedly to the body."

Target selection can help, too.  Police are trained not to strike highly vulnerable targets, like heads and fingers, with their batons unless they can justify using force that's likely to cause serious bodily harm.  (As we all know -- the real world and training aren't always in agreement!)  Some of that is liability driven (fingers), some of it so that we don't kill someone unnecessarily.  If you're trying to hit less vulnerable areas, and can articulate that -- even if you miss and strike a more vulnerable target (aiming for shoulder/bicep and hit head, say), at least you can suggest that you didn't intend to do such serious harm.

But... the bottom line is that there is no substitute for avoiding the situation in the first place whenever you can.  And, if you are forced to defend yourself, there's no substitute for having the best lawyer you can get advising you.  Just ask Mr. Orenthal J. Simpson the value of a good legal team!


----------



## lalom (Dec 1, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> If you liked what Paul wrote, you should listen to what he said about what the other attorny would try to do to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Any attorney worth his/her salt will try to use anything they can to win their case.  However your assumptions and declarations as to what is being taught there or not is mere speculation on your part.  Of course, not being a TSD practitioner you wouldn't know what is taught the curriculum regarding legalities.  

This clip was a randori demonstration using hanbo.  This was not a recorded teaching session.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> I think you guys are reading a bit too much into this short clip. Jus because you have thrown somebody to the ground doesnt mean the fights over so I have no problem with training follow-up techniques.



Well, FWIW, I didnt watch the clip, and dont care how its taught in Toshindo, I was just making a reply to Pam on how our school does it.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 1, 2006)

Fair enough. I dont have any investiment in either style so its all "everybody has one" opinion from me.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 1, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If you base your training entirely on what some lawyer is going to say after the fact you better hang it all up now.



It is not that. My complaint is with _what is being shown on the internet._

Whoever put together this clip and posted it made life more difficult for anyone using the art later on. There may be a lot more to what is being taught. They may have a great discussion on the legal problems you will face and how to avoid them. But _this tape_ is what a jury will see and what a lawyer will try to use against you. There is so much more that could ahve been put out there.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 1, 2006)

True, but I think that bell has been rung. There is pretty much anything out there on the net on any martial art these days, but I agree that we all need to be careful of how we portray out arts in this digital age.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> It is not that. My complaint is with _what is being shown on the internet._
> 
> Whoever put together this clip and posted it made life more difficult for anyone using the art later on. There may be a lot more to what is being taught. They may have a great discussion on the legal problems you will face and how to avoid them. But _this tape_ is what a jury will see and what a lawyer will try to use against you. There is so much more that could ahve been put out there.


 
Well, Don, you are correct. I think that most people would agree that if you end up in court for self-defense, opposing council will hang you out to dry. This video may be something that is used for that, depending on what their overall strategy is.

But, that isn't the real question here, I don't think. The question is, where do we draw the line? There is a point where you have to shield yourself from liability, and particularly as an instructor, act responsibly. But there is also a point to where you have to live your life freely, and not by the fear of what some opposing attorney might do in a bunch of "what if" scenarios. There can be a delicate balance between being responsible, shielding liability, and living or running your business freely.

In the Alexander Pring-Wilson Case, Mr. Wilson used a knife in a fight which resulted in the death of one of the other attackers; he claimed self-defense, the opposing party claimed that they were the victims. The opposing council constantly refered to the knife that was used as a "military knife." And do you want to know the irony? The knife he used was a Spyderco folding knife called _the civilian._

Let me explain the significance here...

Do you know how many articles I have read by "legal experts" that advised not to carry a knife that had a "violent" name or look because you would surly be buried with it in court? Lots. Yet, did it matter in the Alexander Pring-Wilson case? Not at all, because opposing council took a fairly unmenecing tool (as far as knives go) and called it a "military knife" and tried to paint a violent picture of it anyway. It's not just the facts that matter in these cases, it is the arguments of the facts. There was no one single thing that tipped the balance of this case in one direction or the other; it was the culmination of the evidence and arguments that mattered.

When you read something that someone wrote to help sell magazines regarding "legal issues," or even when you speak to an expert about use of force and the law, you have to realize that you are speaking _hypothetically_.

So, yes, it is true. Hypothetically, the name or look of your weapon will matter, as will your internet avatar or posts, as will any video footage, as will any training you have done, as will conversations you have had with friends, as will any of this stuff that "legal experts" like to discuss. It all matters, because it all will be used against you in court.

For us to not have any liability at all, we basically have to discontinue our training, become Buddhist monks, live in solitude, and hope that our lives are never in jeapardy. And even in this state if our lives are in jeapardy, then we'd better keel over and die quickly, because if we use force we still will not be completely free from liability.

And of course, none of us are going to do that. So, we need to balance out living freely with living responsibly, and doing what we can to sheild liability. This would entail the most important aspect of behaving reasonably in the first place, and avoiding violent situations. The totality of the circumstance, our reasonableness, our history, and our provable previous educational experiences regarding use of force and the law will matter much more then the other details. And as instructors, what matters is our legal council and insurance, and that we can prove through the waivers that people sign, the overall philosophy regarding violence, and the documented talking points regarding reasonable use of force and the law; in other words, what will matter is that we have done our due diligence. This will make much more of a difference then any of our "techniques" that are caught on tape.

And, if this footage is such a huge problem and is so incriminating, then guess what... the entire martial arts community has a problem. Because I have seen comparable to far more incriminating evidence caught on tape from every facet of the martial arts; from Bujinkan to TKD to MMA to FMA - you name it. And the fact is, most "martial arts" don't even bother to have a use of force discussion, let alone documented talking points.

So, to criticize this footage as being irresponsible is, in my view, a criticism of the entire martial arts population in general (including those from your own [fill in blank] style). There may be some validity to that criticism, but then we should probably be talking about the lack of understanding of legalities in the martial arts in general and not isolating our conversations to just this video clip (once again, I have seen much worse). And with that, we will have an interesting discussion that will solve nothing. This is because we will still have to make personal choices as to where we draw the line between sheilding liability and living freely.

And as to this footage; I am not going to give an opinion on its application, and I am not a ToSHinDo or Ninjutsu guy of any ilk. I will say for sure, though: to assert that video footage like this is going to tip the scales of justice is unreasonable. It will be the other details that surround the circumstance that will matter most.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 2, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Well, Don, you are correct. I think that most people would agree that if you end up in court for self-defense, opposing council will hang you out to dry. This video may be something that is used for that, depending on what their overall strategy is.
> 
> But, that isn't the real question here, I don't think. The question is, where do we draw the line? There is a point where you have to shield yourself from liability, and particularly as an instructor, act responsibly. But there is also a point to where you have to live your life freely, and not by the fear of what some opposing attorney might do in a bunch of "what if" scenarios. There can be a delicate balance between being responsible, shielding liability, and living or running your business freely.
> 
> ...


 
Great post, Paul

It definitely IS a balancing act, isn't it. I shudder to think that some unscrupulous DA will discover that I purchased an Ashida Kim book when I was a freshman in high school!


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 2, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> In the Alexander Pring-Wilson Case, Mr. Wilson used a knife in a fight which resulted in the death of one of the other attackers; he claimed self-defense, the opposing party claimed that they were the victims. The opposing council constantly refered to the knife that was used as a "military knife." And do you want to know the irony? The knife he used was a Spyderco folding knife called _the civilian._



Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.



> After several requests from undercover law enforcement personnel, Spyderco produced the Civilian model.  Developed for a prestigious branch of US law enforcement, the patented reverse "S" blade shape evolved to fulfill the back-up needs of undercover agents with little or no training in self defense. *With its paper thin tip, the Civilian is specifically designed for law enforcement personnel and not designed for general utility or everyday use.*



I happen to have a friend that works closely with law enforcement. To be exact, he is an orderly in one of those places where they send people that the court deems criminally insane. He deals with people on a daily basis that are not only legally unstable, but have commited foul crimes against others. He is in real danger of one of these obsessed scum bags looking him up some time in the future. Until they changed the laws about concealed carry weapons, he carried a Spyderco Civilian. He stated quiet clearly that despite the fact that he was an upstanding member of his community and worked where he did, if he ever had to use the thing on one of his ex- convicts, the best legal advice he got was that particular knife would add about 100k to his legal bills IIRC if he managed to stay out of jail. He was willing to pay that cost for the advantages the Civilian gave him in terms of a fighting knife. That is, a knife *made* with the purpose of fighting in mind.

So, how much time in a cell with Bubba are you willing to endure, and how much of your net worth are you willing to flush down the toilet because one of your students posted a clip of you beating on a student when he is down? That is something you can avoid quite easily.

Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? If you do not, I strongly suggest you do. When things hit the fan, it is too late to worry about things like that. My advice goes to everyone. It will cost you money, but you shell out cash for self defense training every month. Cash to keep you safe from being raped in prison is rather cheap when veiwed in that light.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Dec 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? If you do not, I strongly suggest you do. When things hit the fan, it is too late to worry about things like that. My advice goes to everyone. It will cost you money, but you shell out cash for self defense training every month. Cash to keep you safe from being raped in prison is rather cheap when veiwed in that light.


 
The lawyer on retainer is great advice. I served on the board of a volunteer, public benefit corporation and having one saved us from bankruptcy.

You do make a good point about the knife. As a painter, I generally carry a utility knife. Unfortunately, it also looks a bit like a fighting knife, althought I do NOT carry it for self-defence. You've given me much to think about.

I'm at a crossroads here. Both you and Paul are more experienced in the arts than I am and have given me good advice in the past. I think I'll split the difference and acknowledge both your points...


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 2, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:


> You do make a good point about the knife. As a painter, I generally carry a utility knife. Unfortunately, it also looks a bit like a fighting knife, althought I do NOT carry it for self-defence. You've given me much to think about.



Well, if you have a lot of people that can come forward to say that you pulled the thing out to cut wire and such, you have gone a long way towards saving yourself from seeing the inside of jail. But legal fees can be expensive even so. Any knife can look like it was made for killing because 99.9999% of the knives made can be used to kill someone else. But if it has a tanto point, blackened blade and anything else along that line, you increase the problems.

It is not worth worrying about getting raped in prison to warrent doing anything that would cause you problems if they can be avoided. Carrying a knife *just* to use for fighting or putting tapes of your art doing things that are illeagle is just too simple a thing to avoid IMO. If anyone has done something like that, defended themselves and yet still reccomends doing it, I would be eager to hear their opinions. As it stands, no one I know who has had to actually talk to the police after a violent incident seems to disagree with taking the legally safe route.



> I'm at a crossroads here. Both you and Paul are more experienced in the arts than I am and have given me good advice in the past. I think I'll split the difference and acknowledge both your points...



If you have problems with a particular opinion between two people, the best thing to do is to get the opinion of someone more knowlegable than either party. Go get a lawyer that has served as a prosecutor. Put him on a retainer and ask him various questions about things like your knife, what you post and such. I have the advantage of being very, very close to an lawyer that used to serve as a prosecutor, and listened to the advice I got and then went out and got one on my own.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 2, 2006)

This is actually becoming a GREAT thread! While I have to say that Don and Tulisan are probably two of my most favorite (read I agree with you guys on "almost" everything) posters here, I think Im more in line with what Tulisan is saying here. Neither point is "right or worng" IMO its just a philosophical difference. You guys both post great stuff.

I believe that no matter what you do or train a lawyer is going to trot out something to use against you, ultimately what matters is if you were justified. If some crackhead breaks into your home with a machette and cuts you and you shoot him down with a legally owned "military assault rifle" with all types of spec ops dodads on it and "Killer" etched on the reciever, you are not going to prison even if they show youtube clips of you dressed up like rambo and training for Armageddon. Be more worried about knowing when force (and what type) can be used than the tool or technique you use. Like I said over in the NYPD shooting thread. If a shooting is good who cares if it takes 5000 rounds to survive? But if you are wrong one shot is too much. Same here, if you are right ultimately its not really going to matter what brand of knife you used or what internet videos there are of you out there. A tanto point or black blade isnt going to turn a good use of force into a bad one. If you are in a questionable situation it may tilt the scale but its always going to be what you did that gets you in trouble more than what you used. If you are in the wrong it wont matter if you used a butterknive or you pencil. You can ALWAYS get sued civically so yeah while all this may hurt you in the pocketbook, worry more about surviving. If you are really concerned about defense use what is most effective and money be damned, it wont matter if you are dead.



> So, yes, it is true. Hypothetically, the name or look of your weapon will matter, as will your internet avatar or posts, as will any video footage, as will any training you have done, as will conversations you have had with friends, as will any of this stuff that "legal experts" like to discuss. It all matters, because it all will be used against you in court.
> 
> For us to not have any liability at all, we basically have to discontinue our training, become Buddhist monks, live in solitude, and hope that our lives are never in jeapardy. And even in this state if our lives are in jeapardy, then we'd better keel over and die quickly, because if we use force we still will not be completely free from liability.
> 
> ...



This core idea is what I agree with. But I do not discount what Don is saying here. Most of us go about our lives/training not thinking about what he is saying, that is dangerous too. To totally ignore what we carry, post on the internet, or train is asking for disaster. So to balance things out here I think we need to be aware of what each is saying and make educated decisions for ourselves vs. going along blindly. 

Fortunately the statistical odds for any of us having to worry about this is slim and can be slimmer if we worry more about prevention than fighting.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.


 
lol...whoops.  I actually checked my notes, and I am wrong. The knife used was not the Civilian, but the Endura with a black handle. Description here: http://spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=208 Sorry about that, because by me giving the wrong information, I totally clouded my point. Grr...

So the POINT is, it didn't matter what the knife was called or marketed for in this case as far as the prosecuting attorney was concerned. It was a "military knife" every time opposing council refered to it, even though there is nothing to indicate that the Endura is used for "military" purposes.

This supports my point that we both agree with; and that point is opposing council will try to use everything that they can to paint a negative picture of who they are going after.



> Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer?


 
O.K., this is the second time this was asked and sorry for not answering it before. Of course I have attorneys on retainer; I have no less then 2 specifically on retainer, but I have access to more for specific matters (insurance, financial, etc.). It is not that I am Mr. important-pants or something; it is just that I am very fortunate to have access to one of the largest law firms in my state due to what my wife does for a living.

I also am very fortunate to have access to opinions of both attorneys and members of the law enforcement community who's opinions are regarded highly in these matters (some on a national level), because they have been used as expert witnessess many times before.

And as far as "articles" go regarding legal matters, the best (collectively) I have seen in commercial publications (not counting academic journals mind you) is the "ask the attorney" section of the GLSDA newsletter: http://www.glsda.org/ That is a great group that I highly recommend that people join, specifically if you live in the Great Lakes Area. The reason I like this publication, as far as commercial publications go, is because the legal experts are not tied to the publication in such a way where they can't be frank about their opinions. Most articles published in commercial publications are designed to gain readership, and therefore can often be overblown or exaggerated, stepping over the bounds of practicality.

Now, let me say for the record this: _Not all of us in the Combatives/SD/MA world are retarded._ I know that his might be surprising to some. I like Mr. MacYoungs website and writing, don't get me wrong, and I think he does a great service. But he sometimes writes in a manner that makes it sound like everyone else besides him and his network in the combatives community are a bunch of ignorant Jerks who are destined to get all of their clients sent to prison. I know why he does it, and I respect it. However, don't get all caught up in that ****. We gotta be a bit more objective than that and realize that were not all stupid. 

*Regarding legal matters in General:*

Don, we both agree here on most of this issue; so Jonathan, it isn't like our views are that opposing. Again, we both agree that opposing council will hang you out to dry with everything they can, and therefore we need to do what we can, within reason, to protect ourselves.

But my point is that our best defense is that we behave like REASONABLE and PRODUCTIVE citizens. It is not reasonable to hide our interests in the martial arts or combatives, paranoid of the law at every corner, anymore then it would be to dress like Dog the bounty hunter with an arsenol of weapons everyday. Both extremes will backfire in court anyway.

We all need to decide how we want to balance out our lives with living freely and living responsibly and sheilding liability.

I have attorneys, insurance, and proper waivers for my business. I have talking points covering legal matters. I train and teach with legalities in mind. For my personal defense, I carry a firearm of which I am licensed. Anything else I would use for self-defense are things that are available too me as opportunity; because I HAVE to use them and because they are there for other purposes other then defense. This could be a briefcase, an ink pen, or a utility knife. And most importantly, I don't behave in a manner that is consistant with that of a criminal, or that would put me in a mutual combatant situation.

But I am not going to hide what I do or my interests.

These are all things that I do personally to balance liability with living freely. Everyone has their own personal choices to make in this matter.

*As to this video footage:*

Let's not forget what the original topic of discussion is here.

The real topic of discussion is this video footage, and how "incriminating" it would be if used in court. This is where I am going to disagree with some people here.

You see, I agree with the notion that footage like this could be used in court; but I am also saying that almost all training sessions and video footage in the martial arts could be used in the same manner. It is not like Hayes is in pajama's and sneaking up behind someone and using a sentary removal technique here...ahem.

So, for those of you who think that this material is so incriminating, I suggest that you tape some of your own training sessions and look at that as well. Because the fact is, combatives/SD/MA involves using force; which can be translated too HURTING someone else. So IT ALL looks bad if caught on tape and used in court, and this isn't isolated to hitting a _knife weilding attacker _while on the ground. An argument can be made against almost ANY type of training where force is involved.

Because this is true, actual techniques caught on tape (besides that of the wearing of pajamas and the sneaking up behind people sort) are rarely going to matter as much as the argument behind them, the overall training philosophy and presentation of the training entitiy, the waivers and legality talking points, and all the other factors surrounding the circumstance. The thing that will matter the most, of course, is if it was clearly a clean use of force or not. No video footage will change that fact either way.

Again, it is the TOTALITY of the cirumstance that matters. So if this video footage is irresponsible, then I think that we ALL need to look in the mirror...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> This is actually becoming a GREAT thread! While I have to say that Don and Tulisan are probably two of my most favorite (read I agree with you guys on "almost" everything) posters here, I think Im more in line with what Tulisan is saying here.


 
Sorry; I was formulating my monster post before I was able to read yours. I wanted to say that admiration goes both ways here, Blotan Hunka you have said some really good sense stuff that I agree with as well. 

Also, once again you make some really great points here, specifically in that a clean shooting or good use of force is much more important then the other details. At the end of the day, that is what is going to matter the most.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 2, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to have a friend that works closely with law enforcement. To be exact, he is an orderly in one of those places where they send people that the court deems criminally insane. He deals with people on a daily basis that are not only legally unstable, but have commited foul crimes against others. He is in real danger of one of these obsessed scum bags looking him up some time in the future. Until they changed the laws about concealed carry weapons, he carried a Spyderco Civilian. He stated quiet clearly that despite the fact that he was an upstanding member of his community and worked where he did, if he ever had to use the thing on one of his ex- convicts, the best legal advice he got was that particular knife would add about 100k to his legal bills IIRC if he managed to stay out of jail. He was willing to pay that cost for the advantages the Civilian gave him in terms of a fighting knife. That is, a knife *made* with the purpose of fighting in mind.



Under my state's laws, the definition of a concealed knife as a weapon versus a tool often turns on minutiae of the design or it's practical use either at work or in daily life for anything other than fighting.  That knife...  I'd be charging someone with carrying a concealed weapon if I found it on them.  There's almost no way I can see that it's useful for day-to-day work, or even special purposes like skinning knives or carpet knives.  I don't care what a manufacturer calls it...  They can call it "Warm & Fuzzy Teddy Bear" if they want.  That knife is a weapon, and I think the mythical "reasonable man" would agree fully.

Which brings me a little more on the original topic; the video clip, if presented as proof of "self defense training" would be widely open to attack because so many of the techniques shown included attacks after the opponent was likely to have been disabled and no longer presenting a threat, in any reasonable interpretation.  If it's presented or explained as "practicing historical combat techniques" -- it become a different matter.  A lot of self defense comes down to articulation.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> Under my state's laws, the definition of a concealed knife as a weapon versus a tool often turns on minutiae of the design or it's practical use either at work or in daily life for anything other than fighting. That knife... I'd be charging someone with carrying a concealed weapon if I found it on them. There's almost no way I can see that it's useful for day-to-day work, or even special purposes like skinning knives or carpet knives. I don't care what a manufacturer calls it... They can call it "Warm & Fuzzy Teddy Bear" if they want. That knife is a weapon, and I think the mythical "reasonable man" would agree fully.


 
That's cool, because I know people from the marine/fishing industry who prefer this hooked type design because it helps them with severing rope, line, webbing, and netting. Added with the thin point that allows for hook removal without damaging the fish too greatly (for throwing it back) and the serrations, VG-10 steel, and G-10 handle for edge retention, rust prevention, and grip while out in a boat, the "Civilian" makes for a great marine knife. In fact, I am talking about this so much that I am getting excited about it and may pick one up if I can get one at a decent price!

But that's cool that you, and others who share your opinion, would throw anyone who had this knife in jail for carrying a concealed weapon.

This illustrates the exact reason why knife regulation should be both slim to non-existant and CLEAR rather then extensive and pending on an officer's, prosecutor's, or judge's subjective opinions.

But until that happends, we all need to be a bit careful with what we carry, particularly in Virginia and other certian states...

Paul


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 2, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> Under my state's laws, the definition of a concealed knife as a weapon versus a tool often turns on minutiae of the design or it's practical use either at work or in daily life for anything other than fighting. That knife... I'd be charging someone with carrying a concealed weapon if I found it on them. There's almost no way I can see that it's useful for day-to-day work, or even special purposes like skinning knives or carpet knives. I don't care what a manufacturer calls it... They can call it "Warm & Fuzzy Teddy Bear" if they want. That knife is a weapon, and I think the mythical "reasonable man" would agree fully.
> 
> Which brings me a little more on the original topic; the video clip, if presented as proof of "self defense training" would be widely open to attack because so many of the techniques shown included attacks after the opponent was likely to have been disabled and no longer presenting a threat, in any reasonable interpretation. If it's presented or explained as "practicing historical combat techniques" -- it become a different matter. A lot of self defense comes down to articulation.


 
If you are an LEO I would hope that you are saying you would charge some ******* you dealt with, with a weapons charge. If you are saying that you would charge some guy at the supemarket with that clipped to his pocket because "he has no use for it" you are kinda scaring me. It looks to be a legal item in terms of buying and owning one. If you steal something and have one on you OK, but if you are a law abiding citizen carrying one and wind up having to use it in a justified self defense situation I would hope you wouldnt screw someone for it.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 2, 2006)

lol...you know what's funny:



> We gotta be a bit more objective than that and realize that were not all stupid.


 
Nothing like a grammatical error or two when your trying to convince others that your not stupid.  :lfao:


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 2, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> If you are an LEO I would hope that you are saying you would charge some ******* you dealt with, with a weapons charge. If you are saying that you would charge some guy at the supemarket with that clipped to his pocket because "he has no use for it" you are kinda scaring me. It looks to be a legal item in terms of buying and owning one. If you steal something and have one on you OK, but if you are a law abiding citizen carrying one and wind up having to use it in a justified self defense situation I would hope you wouldnt screw someone for it.


 
Somebody walking down the street, minding their own business who has a knife that I never see or know about?  They don't have much to worry about, and I'm not likely to arrest them.  A lot comes down to context; I expect certain knives in the possession of carpenters, tile workers, carpet layers, etc. that would be more suspect carried in concealed manner on an office worker.  A working knife may be hidden from view by clothing, but it's not likely to be in a sheath designed for mounting in the small of the back...  And, given the description of this particular knife (the Spyderco Civilian) combined with the manufacturer's description of it, I don't buy Tulisan's explanation for it.  There are lots of legitimate uses for hooked knives, like skinning knives, tile knives, and carpet knives.  This particular knife is a lot harder to justify credibly, in my opinion.  But I'd listen to an explanation; if it made reasonable sense in context, and the guy wasn't a problem child, he'd be on his way.

Let me give an example that might make that clearer.  One night, I stopped a guy for a traffic violation.  Turned out he had a knife tucked in the visor.  He told me about it, warned me, and was cooperative.  He explained why it was there (tucked as a convenience earlier and forgot about it), and was generally reasonable.  He didn't get charged with carrying a concealed weapon, though I could have.  But... A gang banger with that same knife, in that same place?  Yeah -- he'd have been charged.  Another time, we stopped a guy in the vicinity of a burglary that had just occurred.  He had a lighter with a small spring-powered/switch-blade sort-of knife on him.  He got charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and later, with the burglary.  Sure, the "knife" was a cheap charge -- but it let us hold him.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 2, 2006)

Sounds reasonable. Where I live lots of people have folding knives so almost everybody could get arrested by those standards. A dagger or a switchblade or a butterfly knife will get you in trouble here but I dont think the cops would look twice at a folder like that (beyond officer safety that is).How well do those charges hold up in court?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 3, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> There are lots of legitimate uses for hooked knives, like skinning knives, tile knives, and carpet knives. This particular knife is a lot harder to justify credibly, in my opinion. But I'd listen to an explanation; if it made reasonable sense in context, and the guy wasn't a problem child, he'd be on his way.


 
That's fine in that your doing your job as your state would like you too; where you make the decision based on the circumstance. The fact is, if you have reason to believe that someone is going to commit a crime, and you can justify it, then you can find a reason to hold someone or at least put on some heat. My beef isn't really with you, it's regarding self-defense laws in your's, as well as many other, states. I would also like to know the answer to BH's question: how often do these charges stick?

What the state of Virginia is basically saying, by the sounds of it, is that knives are *illegal* to have for self-defense. I think that this is inappropriate. People should be able to have whatever they want for self-defense, within reason, because self-defense is an inalienable right. If someone is likely to commit a crime, there are other things that should add up to being detained and charged besides simply carrying a knife.

But this goes back to why I urge people to get a concealed pistol's license and carry a firearm legally. And this is especially why we need to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. A gun with a license is seen as the law abiding citizens way of defending him/herself. A knife or other make shift weapon is seen as something a thug carries to commit a crime. The latter may be completely untrue depending on the circumstance and who the carrier is, but the law probably won't see it that way.

So, that is why I always say that if you carry a knife, do so because it is a _utility tool_, not because you intend to use it for self-defense.

But, we have officially gone beyond the topic of this thread..

Hijack over, Hooaah. :ubercool:


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> *As to this video footage:*
> 
> Let's not forget what the original topic of discussion is here.
> 
> ...



There is a lot of truth in that. But how easy is it to avoid unneeded trouble by *not* posting clips of you hitting someone on the ground with a stick?

Take a look at all that I have posted. I have never said that it might not be needed to hit someone on the ground. But I am saying we should not make it any easier for some scumbag to sue us later on. If I had this clip and was making the choice to put it on the internet or not, my choice would be clear. I question why someone would open up every Toshindo practicioner to legal trouble by posting this type of thing on the internet. It is not like they _have_ to post this stuff.

There is a bit difference between doing something that _might_ open you up to legal trouble and flaunting that training in front of others. And the simple fact is that if you have any relation to ninjutsu (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu or Toshindo) you already have something that can be used against you in a court of law. Unlike someone that practices Tae Kwon Do or Kenpo, we will already be looked at with a bit of suspicion. If anyone reading this thread decides to not follow Hayes' example and takes care before posting something on youtube, I might have done a great service to them.

I reject the agrument that we should do whatever we want since we can be sued anyways. I also carry a Spyderco Delica and post on internet sites, so I am not the type to be scared of doing anything for fear of legal trouble. But if you can avoid trouble, it is only logical that you do it.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I reject the agrument that we should do whatever we want since we can be sued anyways. I also carry a Spyderco Delica and post on internet sites, so I am not the type to be scared of doing anything for fear of legal trouble. But if you can avoid trouble, it is only logical that you do it.


 
Now now... I am not saying "do what you want because you'll be sued anyway," so I reject that argument as well. I am just saying that one has to reasonably balance living freely with reducing liability.

You do make an intriging point about video footage in general. This brings up an interesting question, and I am curious to hear what everyone thinks: where do we draw the line when it comes to what we allow to be filmed and put on the internet for all to see?

Thoughts?


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Now now... I am not saying "do what you want because you'll be sued anyway," so I reject that argument as well. I am just saying that one has to reasonably balance living freely with reducing liability.
> 
> You do make an intriging point about video footage in general. This brings up an interesting question, and I am curious to hear what everyone thinks: where do we draw the line when it comes to what we allow to be filmed and put on the internet for all to see?
> 
> Thoughts?



Some people do seem to think that you should do wahtever you want since you could be sued anyways and would take your statements to support their fantasy. Not saying that you are at fault, just trying to make it clear enough for the most stupid fantsy guy in this board.

And for what we show on the internet, definatly not the type of thing I jumped down Nexus's throat here about. And no pictures of people getting cut down like a sentry, or hit on the ground, or anything that their legal council would balk at.

It seems simple to me. If there is any question about it causing trouble or not, then just don't post it and put up something else that is safer. Better to be too safe and just not put something out than find out too late that it will get you into trouble.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Sounds reasonable. Where I live lots of people have folding knives so almost everybody could get arrested by those standards. A dagger or a switchblade or a butterfly knife will get you in trouble here but I dont think the cops would look twice at a folder like that (beyond officer safety that is).How well do those charges hold up in court?


It depends on the defense attorney.  As I said, the case often comes down to minutiae and articulation of the circumstances.  "Concealed" means hidden from common observation -- and I've seen that argued!  With knives, the code lists "any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack" and includes a "anything similar" phrase.  I've seen attorneys bring a dictionary in to argue that a particular knife wasn't one of the listed... and I've seen good prosecutors turn that around by identifying the common characteristics with the knife in question.  It sort of depends on how hard the prosecutor wants to fight.

And, yes, we do get concealed machetes.  Gang bangers are so much fun...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> What the state of Virginia is basically saying, by the sounds of it, is that knives are *illegal* to have for self-defense. I think that this is inappropriate. People should be able to have whatever they want for self-defense, within reason, because self-defense is an inalienable right. If someone is likely to commit a crime, there are other things that should add up to being detained and charged besides simply carrying a knife.
> 
> But this goes back to why I urge people to get a concealed pistol's license and carry a firearm legally. And this is especially why we need to maintain our 2nd amendment rights. A gun with a license is seen as the law abiding citizens way of defending him/herself. A knife or other make shift weapon is seen as something a thug carries to commit a crime. The latter may be completely untrue depending on the circumstance and who the carrier is, but the law probably won't see it that way.
> 
> ...



No... What the code says is that people who CONCEAL a knife that's main intent is hurting people are breaking the law because many of the people who do so intend to use that knife to hurt someone, not defend themselves.  If it's a utility tool...  Then you're not breaking the law, and if you happen to use it to protect yourself, you fall back on the defense of justification.  Just make sure that the "utility tool" definition is credible and it's not on the list of specified weapons.  Again -- the bottom line is that if you aren't doing anything that's going to bring police attention down upon you , you probably don't have anything to worry about.

FYI -- VA is a "shall issue" state for CCWs; unless there's a reason, once you meet certain minimal requirements, you can get a CCW.  You can generally carry a gun openly almost anywhere, as well.  And VA doesn't require registration of guns, either.  I'm a fan of the 2nd Amendment (in fact, the entire Bill of Rights).


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 3, 2006)

Where do you think that spyderco falls withing those definitions? Its a plain old folder really, just hooked and serrated. No more deadly than a buck knife of the same length. Its not a "any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack"...not grilling you or anything just curious.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Now now... I am not saying "do what you want because you'll be sued anyway," so I reject that argument as well. I am just saying that one has to reasonably balance living freely with reducing liability.
> 
> You do make an intriging point about video footage in general. This brings up an interesting question, and I am curious to hear what everyone thinks: where do we draw the line when it comes to what we allow to be filmed and put on the internet for all to see?
> 
> Thoughts?



Honestly, I'm not a fan of filming training.  Yes, there's the possible issue of the video being used against you, or to cast aspersions on you because of what it seems to show.  But that applies to still images and even notes or "eyewitness testimony."  ("Those crazy guys run around in black military style fatigues/ninja costumes/whatever practicing combat...."type of statements could be just as damaging.)

Instead, my issue is that I've noticed some instructors change what they teach if cameras are present, or that the cameras become a distraction (ever been asked to move so that someone who wasn't even participating in the training session could set up their camera? I have) and the reliance on the camera to capture the details (which it often fails to do!) leads to inattentive training by some students.  My teacher doesn't allow video taping when he teaches, but he encourages note-taking, and I agree with him.

Posting video on the internet leads to the other part of the problem; I teach things a certain way based on the students present.  My teacher does this, and so does his teacher, and I get the impression that many Bujinkan instructors do as well.  Posting that video means people who couldn't bother to be there can get the lesson -- and it may not have been "meant" for them.  It also leads to people who don't have a formal link to the training body (Bujinkan/Toshindo/whatever martial arts association you care to name) may start copying and misusing/misapplying what they see.  I don't have many "deep secrets" in my training -- but some things take time and sweat to pay the dues to earn.  I don't want someone "learning" it off the internet...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Where do you think that spyderco falls withing those definitions? Its a plain old folder really, just hooked and serrated. No more deadly than a buck knife of the same length. Its not a "any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack"...not grilling you or anything just curious.



Looking at that particular knife, I would argue that it falls under the prohibitions as "a similar weapon" along the lines of a razor.  It doesn't look like a work or utility knife.  In the hands of a carpet layer -- I'd probably not question it at all...  But, the manufacturer states that it's not designed or intended as a general utility knife.  I'm a fan of Spyderco blades, and I'm sure it would hold up well to ordinary use... but that wasn't their intention in designing and making it.  You can sharpen an axe blade well enough to shave with it -- but I think you're probably still going to stick with whatever shaving razor you prefer, right?  If I'm going to court after charging someone with carrying this knife... I'm probably going to have taken the time to find out what the manufacturer says about it.  

As I said, often the success of these charges depends on the totality of the circumstances and the articulation.  If I stopped someone and they had this knife on them, but offered what seemed a reasonable explanation (like it's for marine/fishing use, and they've got a tacklebox or even just a fishing license), and they're not causing problems -- I probably wouldn't do anything.  But if they're dressed for a party, and the knife isn't just clipped to a pocket, but tucked into the small of the back, under their belt?  That's a bit of a different situation, isn't it?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 3, 2006)

More To Shin Do Videos:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 3, 2006)

Yet another To Shin Do Clip :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5400184160196346338&q=to+shin+do


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 3, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> Looking at that particular knife, I would argue that it falls under the prohibitions as "a similar weapon" along the lines of a razor. It doesn't look like a work or utility knife. In the hands of a carpet layer -- I'd probably not question it at all... But, the manufacturer states that it's not designed or intended as a general utility knife. I'm a fan of Spyderco blades, and I'm sure it would hold up well to ordinary use... but that wasn't their intention in designing and making it. You can sharpen an axe blade well enough to shave with it -- but I think you're probably still going to stick with whatever shaving razor you prefer, right? If I'm going to court after charging someone with carrying this knife... I'm probably going to have taken the time to find out what the manufacturer says about it.
> 
> As I said, often the success of these charges depends on the totality of the circumstances and the articulation. If I stopped someone and they had this knife on them, but offered what seemed a reasonable explanation (like it's for marine/fishing use, and they've got a tacklebox or even just a fishing license), and they're not causing problems -- I probably wouldn't do anything. But if they're dressed for a party, and the knife isn't just clipped to a pocket, but tucked into the small of the back, under their belt? That's a bit of a different situation, isn't it?


 
Yeah I guess so.

IMO while Im all for giving the police the tools to lock up the bad guys, Im a little afraid that they can also be stretched into a way to "disarm" the "good guys". If that guy with the knife clipped to his back is a hard working, tax paying, never been in trouble in his life type guy, who somehow has a police contact that reveals it, stretching a legally purchasable knife into a "something similar" weapon arrest doesnt seem in the interest of justice. Carpet layer or not. Not saying that YOU in this example would, I think most cops would know the difference between this guy and some gangbanger and would use their discretion, but Im also fairly certain that some cops would.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 3, 2006)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> More To Shin Do Videos:


 
Back on topic. Is that "punch the attacking arm" thing peculiar to TSD or is it in all Ninjutsu styles? While it looks good in slow-mo, Im skeptical of its effectiveness in full speed punching.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Back on topic. Is that "punch the attacking arm" thing peculiar to TSD or is it in all Ninjutsu styles? While it looks good in slow-mo, Im skeptical of its effectiveness in full speed punching.


 
It is part of an underlying philosophy of movement.  All the Budo Taijutsu, To Shin do, X-Kan etc. utilize various ways of moving off line and intercepting and destroying/damaging the attacking tool.  Just one method but very typical of all.  When the distance and angling are right then it is useful.  If they are not :idunno: well it is much like anything else and not very useful.  Realize that their are countless ways to deal with an incoming attack withing Budo Taijutsu (what I am familiar with) and this is just one way.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Back on topic. Is that "punch the attacking arm" thing peculiar to TSD or is it in all Ninjutsu styles? While it looks good in slow-mo, Im skeptical of its effectiveness in full speed punching.


 
Also envision tools being used in this movement to give the defender an advantage.  Budo Taijutsu is definately a tool based art.


----------



## Grey Eyed Bandit (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Back on topic. Is that "punch the attacking arm" thing peculiar to TSD or is it in all Ninjutsu styles? While it looks good in slow-mo, Im skeptical of its effectiveness in full speed punching.


 
You don't punch as much as you move into kamae.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 3, 2006)

Nimravus said:


> You don't punch as much as you move into kamae.


 
Which is a very, very good point!


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 3, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Back on topic. Is that "punch the attacking arm" thing peculiar to TSD or is it in all Ninjutsu styles? While it looks good in slow-mo, Im skeptical of its effectiveness in full speed punching.



To kind of explain what Nimravus said, you get your arm out there. If it hits, great. If it does not, you have it closer to the other guy and flow into the next move. Against a punch that pulls back it may not connect. But there are other things to do from there if it does not connect.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> To kind of explain what Nimravus said, you get your arm out there. If it hits, great. If it does not, you have it closer to the other guy and flow into the next move. Against a punch that pulls back it may not connect. But there are other things to do from there if it does not connect.


Just to dig into that a bit deeper... It doesn't sound much different from "blocks" in my system; we move off the line of attack, and replace the target with a block.  A block is a strike against the incoming attack -- but if the movement has taken you to where there's no contact, that's just how it sometimes happens...  Am I following this rightly?

After you're off the line -- you have lots of options about how to deal with the attack.


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 4, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> Just to dig into that a bit deeper... It doesn't sound much different from "blocks" in my system; we move off the line of attack, and replace the target with a block.  A block is a strike against the incoming attack -- but if the movement has taken you to where there's no contact, that's just how it sometimes happens...  Am I following this rightly?
> 
> After you're off the line -- you have lots of options about how to deal with the attack.



Sort of.  based on what I understand of other arts that are designed for unarmed fighting, the block is the purpose of the movement, where what I think Don and Nimravus were explaining is in BBT, moving to the safe spot is the purpose, not the block.  The strike or block is a bonus if it makes contact but it is more about the tactics not the technique, as I understand things.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 4, 2006)

Bigshadow said:


> Sort of.  based on what I understand of other arts that are designed for unarmed fighting, the block is the purpose of the movement, where what I think Don and Nimravus were explaining is in BBT, moving to the safe spot is the purpose, not the block.  The strike or block is a bonus if it makes contact but it is more about the tactics not the technique, as I understand things.



So it's more that you step off the line/avoid the attack, and the stance you end up in happens to contain protective positions that can be blocks?  Where I step off the line, then add a block.

(Gee... this type of thing gets hard to write!)


----------



## Bigshadow (Dec 4, 2006)

jks9199 said:


> So it's more that you step off the line/avoid the attack, and the stance you end up in happens to contain protective positions that can be blocks?  Where I step off the line, then add a block.



Yes and there is more to it, but that is a good start.



jks9199 said:


> (Gee... this type of thing gets hard to write!)




Yes, it is like trying to describe the color red to a blind person or to describe hot to someone who has no feeling.


----------



## Anti-hero Zero (Dec 9, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> With what I do, I know a little bit more about legalities then the average person, but I am not an attorney. I have consulted with attorneys regarding similar issues, however.
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> Paul


 
Thank you Paul, for having the seemingly only informed response to this video.

I'm no ninjutsu expert. I do not in any capacity represent any high ranking ninjutsu teachers, especially not Steven Hayes and company. However, I have met Steven Hayes once, and I do know one of the people in this video. Also, I've trained in toshindo, bujinkan, and jinenkan from various instructors on and off for the last 16 years. Lastly, I have also been a bouncer in a nightclub for a year and have put my ninjutsu teaching to test in real physical confrontations.

Personally, I found my ninjutsu training to be invaluable in resolving any physical confrontation using the absolute least amount of force possible. I primarily relied on pain compliance, or techniques that do not result in the breaking of bones or general maiming of drunkards. Ura and omoto gyaku can be performed very effectively in controlled and discrete techniques. I was much smaller than 80% of anyone I ever "escorted" out of the club where I worked, and I never permantely injured anyone.

As for how Steven Hayes runs his school... go train with him before offering up criticism. Infact, I wholeheartedly suggest you disregard my post because I don't have 25+ years of reputable martial arts training. I'm sincerely not anti or pro Steven Hayes, I'm simply a proponent of "informed" criticism.

-AH


----------



## Zachattack (Dec 10, 2006)

Anti-hero Zero said:


> Thank you Paul, for having the seemingly only informed response to this video.
> 
> I'm no ninjutsu expert. I do not in any capacity represent any high ranking ninjutsu teachers, especially not Steven Hayes and company. However, I have met Steven Hayes once, and I do know one of the people in this video. Also, I've trained in toshindo, bujinkan, and jinenkan from various instructors on and off for the last 16 years. Lastly, I have also been a bouncer in a nightclub for a year and have put my ninjutsu teaching to test in real physical confrontations.
> 
> ...


 

I'm also a TSD practicioner, although relatively new to the art (I've only been around for a year.) However, I am curious who you studied under.
In terms of the forum, at least in our school (under Hayes' senior student John Poliquin) we are taught specifically how to get the law on our side during a conflict, such as how to look helpless during subtle technique, how to make any witness nearby know who is the attacker, etc. The self defense laws vary from state to state, but I know that here in Maine they are a fairly loose set of laws. Getting sued, however, would be a different story. You can get sued for anything nowadays.
We are trained to possess the control necessary during a technique in order to have the choice of whether or not we want to hurt the opponent or not, or injure him to any degree. My suggestion is to check out Stephen Hayes' site http://www.skhquest.com/ and look to see if there are any instructors nearby.


----------



## Arachne (Jan 24, 2007)

The quest is a great website.
Genuine pearls of wisdom. 
Glad to hear your going through similar training as we are with Gary Arthur.


----------



## saru1968 (Jan 25, 2007)

Arachne said:


> The quest is a great website.
> Genuine pearls of wisdom.
> Glad to hear your going through similar training as we are with Gary Arthur.


 
don't know if that chap will hear you as he has not been online since that post...


----------



## Arachne (Jan 28, 2007)

More To-Shindo Video's coming!


----------



## SKB (Jan 28, 2007)

Should I point out you guys are talking about a clip and the legal out come???? A real situation is not going to be just that clip? Also you guys answered the question of how to do it almost word for word the way some of us would of. Do you guys learn some other type of finish or ending when doing similar things? If a thug attacks me I'm going to make sure he is not a threat any more and if kicking him while he is down does this then I am going to kick him. Before you guys jump on me...... I just happen to be in Law Enforcement so I know where to draw the line on using force.


----------



## Johan D'hondt (Apr 22, 2007)

I agree on that... (doing what is needed to stay alive..)

but I don't get it.....Why there is all that fuss about that particular clip?

it is just a videoclip taken in a dojo, to show that you should be able to move freely when attacked and not get stuck in just one technique you may have had in mind when the problem started out, THIS IS A TRAINING ROOM, if you have to make mistakes....that is where you HAVE to make them. I believe that all the participants in that video are still alive!!! that means (to me) that they must be doing something right in "real live"...to stay out of trouble.

if you think you saw some mistakes in that video, GOOD, try them out, do them with AND without the mistakes to get a better understanding of the techniques seen.

if you think you saw some good stuff in that video, GREAT, try them out.

If you are not sure about what you've seen is Good or not, TRY IT  OUT YOURSELF, see and feel what works and what does'nt, Tape yourself to see how you can perform those techniques...

about the legal issues....honestly, when you are in an alley being attacked, the first thing that comes into my mind is, DANGER, not LAW....so first things first, to be charged with manslaughter, you have to be alive first....
(if it can be done without violence, its even better of course)

my humble point of view on the topic so far..

Johan


----------



## ToShinDoKa (Aug 29, 2007)

And nearly a year later, an lo', another reply.  I have the unfortunate, but non-purposeful reputation for starting up dead threads.  Fortunately this one was one, I feel was never argued on both sides.

I know this clip rather well, being I just tested on it.  It's the hanbo defense to associate blue belts with using said weapon in a SELF DEFENSE SITUATION.

Why then, does Anshu continue to hit that attacker.  The way Anshu teaches, is closely in accordance to many state's laws on self defense, specifically in my state.  Anshu FIRST shows the minimum choice you can make when the attacker come in and you pop the knife from his or her hand.  If they don't drop it, (unlikely), or if you miss, then the knife is still intending to cut you, and you must work towards control of the weapon and its wielder, and the overall neutralization of the threat, so you can escape.  

In the case where Anshu was controlling the arm, it was simulating if the attacker was struggling to continue his attack, ground, or regain footing and chase a slower defender.  Now some arts teach you to instantly rip out eyes, crush feet completely, smash into the solar plexus with your elbows, and shove nose cartilage into an attacker's own face...  For the initial defense, THAT seems a bit much.  Hit to the torso, to the ribs, or small pops to the face, tend to leave a few bruises, and make it harder to pursue, due to the pain.  On thing they won't NECESSARILY do is maim the opponent for life, as some martial arts study.  

Heck, when I was training with the American Bujinkan Dojo (a reputable organization mind you) we were taught to finish with a shuto to the Adam's Apple!  Death, anyone?

-Scott T. Ealey
Proud To-Shin Do Practitioner


----------

