# Contemplating Self Defense...



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.

Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion. 

It made me think for a long while and ask myself some questions which I have personally resolved but would make for quite a discussion on these boards. The biggest of these questions is to ask, "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?

It really made me think when we were having our discussion and while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training. I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly. Believe me, I don't see the world through rose colored glasses, there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?

Anyhow, I'd love to hear from everyone on this, its actually quite intriguing when you think about it, and although I did point a finger at Kenpo, like I said, I don't mean disrespect by it and would like to hear what those who study kenpo have to say about it as well.


----------



## SenseiBear (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> ...have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.


 
What, in your opinion, is self defense? If someone is really attacking you, you make sure they don't do it again - otherwise you may have deflected a single portion of the assault, but if you get lucky enough to block, deflect, or absorb the initial assault, should you really give them a second chance?



> "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?


I would say once they have turned and fled, if you chase them down, then you are the attacker... I won't even say I can't imagine scenarios where that is needed and justified - but you are still the attacker.

Or, if you have rendered them physically unable to continue the assault, and then continue to beat them, again: the aggressor.



> I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly. Believe me, I don't see the world through rose colored glasses,


Then surely you realize that at times defending yourself may need to be "brutal, aggressive, and in some cases deadly". 



> raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?


Your State law defines what it is or is not, and when it can/should be used... Often some variation of "If the average person could reasonably believe their life was in danger..."


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

If you look at the real world you can expect to see a disparity in perceived power between an attacker and a victim.  It may be a larger man on a smaller one, a man against a woman, multiple men against one, a weapon versus unarmed.  Criminals generally don't pick on those who appear to be aware and capable of handling themselves.  Given those perceived differences in power , use of extreme force by a defender is to be expected.



> we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them,


 
So what are you supposed to do with an attacker?  Play patty-cake with them?  If someone has escalated an encounter with me to where use of force becomes necessary, and I've exhausted all non-violent means to end it, it is a very bad situation, and I'm going to try to rip a hole through someone to exit that situation.  "Brutal and aggressive?"  Damn right, my responsibility to myself is to go home and be there for my wife and son.  

The person who decides if something warrants "deadly force" or not is you, the problem is whether or not 12 of your peers thinks likewise.   

Lamont


----------



## Hand Sword (Feb 1, 2008)

:erg:


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

Thanks for your response on this post SenseiBear, I see your point and it actually made me realize that I don't really have a clear definition myself on Self Defense. I'm a fairly peaceful person but I've had a few situations come into play where I've been forced to use what I've learned. I think for the most part defining Self Defense is based on the individual, their perspective on the situation and their ability to exercise control in the force they use while defending themselves. 

My typical "Self Defense" techniques are used as they are called upon to be used from situation to situation. I've had moments when a simple take down and submission was enough to diffuse a situation, and other times when the only thing I could do to stop the attacker from coming for me was to physically disable his movement. Then again, when you think about the situations some of us faced in combat while serving our country, deadly force being enacted upon us was met with deadly force in return. 

Perhaps I worry too much, but I just can't see cutting off someone's arm so they can't swing at you, or bludgeoning them senselessly when you could have simply taken out a knee cap and stepped back from the situation. I think that's why the art I'm in is better suited for me, I'm not out to mangle or unnecessarily hurt someone when I'm defending myself, I'm simply trying to stop them from harming me so I can get away from them.


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

Please don't take offense to the original post, it was meant for constructive conversation not to be argumentive. 

I do see what your saying Blindside, I wouldn't hesitate to use whatever force was necessary to diffuse a situation either, I do think however that in certain martial arts, the methods to achieve such an outcome should probably not be considered "Self Defense" techniques as they most certainly step beyond the normal line between defending and assault. Kenpo was used as a the main focus simply because that initial conversation came from two students of that art. What I think I was struggling to truly say or ask in my original post was simply this:

Is it feasible to call your martial arts training "Self Defense" if the martial arts school your studying in focuses on techniques and training that make you the aggressor rather than the defender?

It's late and maybe this flexoril has me a little wonky, but I ask myself questions like this daily, is it feasible to defend yourself after you've transitioned in the conflict from defender to aggressor, when I'm ready to begin teaching would it be ethical to teach someone techniques that hide under the guise of a "self defense" technique knowing that the technique is originally meant to kill. I mean its stuff like this that I guess I worry about, because when the day comes that I'm ready to teach and have earned my place in my art, I want my convictions to be strong in what I'm trying to teach others.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> It's late and maybe this flexoril has me a little wonky, but I ask myself questions like this daily, is it feasible to defend yourself after you've transitioned in the conflict from defender to aggressor, when I'm ready to begin teaching would it be ethical to teach someone techniques that hide under the guise of a "self defense" technique knowing that the technique is originally meant to kill. I mean its stuff like this that I guess I worry about, because when the day comes that I'm ready to teach and have earned my place in my art, I want my convictions to be strong in what I'm trying to teach others.


 
Are your concerns about crossing the defender/aggressor line or about use of deadly force in self-defense?  They are two different issues.


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

More or less about crossing that aggressor/defender line.

In one aspect, I don't want to teach my students to be overly aggressive, after all this is supposed to be "Self Defense" but on the other hand, I think there is a very real need to know some of the techniques and to encourage a certain degree of aggression.  The problem is, I'm not sure how to clearly describe where that line is, I can only really point out to them when you'll know you've crossed it.


----------



## SenseiBear (Feb 1, 2008)

I don't do kenpo, but I feel warmly (if that is how to put it) toward their brutal, multiple strike responses to all attacks. Usually these are from their sets of techniques, and they are like mini-forms. The way I look at those strings of techniques is that they are to teach students to flow effortlessly from one technique to the next - the Grandmaster of our art put it "If one technique doesn't work, then the next one, or the next one, or the next. It's one one one one one one one." 

Hopefully, by the time the techniques and that flow are second nature, you have also trained a student to SEE and be AWARE of the results of their actions thus far, and they can break off their responses once the attacker has been neutralized.

But if someone attacks you with what you believe to be deadly intent, you ought to be sure that their attack cannot continue. You never know what the other man has - and having your mind occupied with concerns about going too far in defending yourself seems to me like a recipe for disaster.

imho


----------



## Dale (Feb 1, 2008)

Hello,
This is my first time posing on this forum so I hope my reply is appropriate.

I think that many schools or system teach extremely, often excessively violent measures for dealing with violence which they label as "self defense" or "reality based" concepts.
Although I understand what is being argued here I don't believe that question is whether or not these techniques are "self defense" or not but rather if they are ethical or not.
The fact is that even the most technically flawed technique can be effectively utilised for self defense if the defenders mind-set is indeed violent or aggressive enough to pull it off. Take for example the many military combatives systems, in which the soldiers willingness to fight and disciplined killer mentality is of far greater combative importance than the specific techniques used within the system.

With reference to the original question these techniques could certainly be labeled as effective "self defense" techniques although the ethics involved in teaching them, or the mindset for which they are designed, to civilians is questionable.

In my opinion the ethical issue of self defense is pretty much inline with the ideas of reasonableness of force, as defined in Australian law. 
Problems arise in martial arts systems when those systems are not accommodating of this concept of reasonableness, in that they offer nothing in the way of scaled responses.  If extreme violence or lethal force is the only trained response to all levels of assault, then it could be argued in many cases the idea of reasonableness will be exceeded and these techniques will qualify as excessive force.

On a side note, when extreme violence is the only response trained for all levels of assaults, then it is likely the trained fighter will offer no response or inadequate/disorganised responses to assaults that do not meet that persons own criteria to respond in the manner in which they are trained.

There are cases and forums where these techniques are appropriate but civilian use is not among them if this is the only response taught.
I do appreciate that the notion of "self defense" often requires serious responses and sometimes desperate measures, however in my own experience more often than not the ability to respond with an appropriate or scaled response is far more useful. This approach is more likely to 'save your skin' in a situation where extreme violence is not called for and when it is it allows the defender to effectively deal with escalation and deescalation of force.



Respectfully,
Dale


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.
> 
> Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.
> 
> ...


 
I've been doing Kenpo for a while now, so I'll toss in my .02.   Many times you'll hear the term 'overkill' and yes, if you look at some Kenpo techniques, there are some brutal moves.  Yet others refer to it as 'overskill' basically saying that it allows you a wide array of options, from mild to brutal.

Now, its my opinion, that its up to the individual themselves, to assess the situation.  This is usually where you'll run into differing thoughts.  Im in agreement with Blindside.  Of course, you opt to defuse the situation, but IMO, sometimes people rely too much on that.  Sometimes that just isnt an option, therefore you need to use force.  I'd say its perfectly fine to call it self defense.  After all, you are defending yourself right?  I'm doing what I need to do to defend myself.  Of course, you need to keep a clear enough head and know when to stop.  If the guy turns and runs and you chase him down to continue beating him or he's down and you keep kicking him, well, the threat is over, so you should stop.  Don't drop your guard, as thats an invite for a sucker shot, but the threat is now over.  

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 1, 2008)

SenseiBear said:


> I don't do kenpo, but I feel warmly (if that is how to put it) toward their brutal, multiple strike responses to all attacks. Usually these are from their sets of techniques, and they are like mini-forms. The way I look at those strings of techniques is that they are to teach students to flow effortlessly from one technique to the next - the Grandmaster of our art put it "If one technique doesn't work, then the next one, or the next one, or the next. It's one one one one one one one."
> 
> Hopefully, by the time the techniques and that flow are second nature, you have also trained a student to SEE and be AWARE of the results of their actions thus far, and they can break off their responses once the attacker has been neutralized.
> 
> ...


 
Great post!  The part that I'd like to focus on is the first paragraph.  Like your art, its the same as in Kenpo.  The idea is just what you said...the idea is to be able to flow from one move to the next.  This is where the terms "What if" and Even If" come into play.  "What if" they do this after they punch?  "Even if" this happens.  The multiple moves allow you to have options.  Being able to flow or 'graft' from one move to the next is a big part of the art.  

Mike


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 1, 2008)

even minor confrontations between people have elements of combat, war.  
at the first meeting and sizing or judging each other up, is comparable to spying and reconaissance.  after that, an aggressor will try to use whatever means possible to break down the victim.  if it is not a sneak attack, then the attack might involve intimidation and threats or also tricks.   either to take by surprise or psych the victim out with intimidation.  
i believe, that intimidation is probably something that one should focus on more than the actual fighting.  that is dealing with the first stages of the budding physical fight.  how to neutralize..how to stand ones ground, being aware and confident of ones rights etc.  

problem is with aimless aggressive ma, that they may be freaking the person out more than they are helping them.  for example, someone comes up to you and just wants to mess around or test you in some way, if you are not secure and only practice to hurt and do damage, then you#ll get all pumped up for nothing.  not saying it's not good to be prepared for anything. but too many false alarms would mean that there is a issue of fear that be negative. at least, it means that one is not seeing things as they are but projecting ones own fears of people.  you don't see climbers throwing darts at pictures of mountains. you don't see skydivers demonising  heights. but some martial artists seem to be running from something. and they see fights and reason for bad attitude where i sometimes do not.

of course there may be a thrill in fighting for some people.  isn't that why there are ma for example.  however, when one person truly does damage to another person, then it's something that wont go away and can end up being nothing like what one thought it would be. lawsuits, hospitals, getting arrested-regret guilt.  not very nice.   

for many martial artists without any experience, martial art means fighting.  i think it should be like that, but it's not.  the arts are often very far from reality.  not physically, but in a spiritual way.  you watch a kungfu movie and it looks so cool to kick some *** with some funky tunes in the background.  reality is more like watching a really extreme horrormovie in pitch black darkness with the volume blasting.  -in fantasy land it's cool to fight and even fun somehow.  in reality it can be anything but pleasant. often when fights break out, suddenly many people dont want to fight anymore. - don't get me wrong too, i love fantasy land and ma brings a huge smile to my face, but when i share that with some people, they act like they have just discovered a weakness in me.

so im not saying anything bad about the arts themselves.  rather, it's all the misconceptions that people have that are harmful.  when i show something artsy for example, many will say- 'yeah but, this and that-i could have gotten you-that doesnt work-'etc.   and if you really take it to simple fighting, then theres not enough art and uniqueness or it's too scary to even bother dealing with.  clearly a case of not knowing what exactly is going on coupled with some grave misconceptions. 
like a child that is told to choose one colour candy and when he sees the other kid with the other colour starts crying because he wanted the other colour after all.

but as i mentioned earlier, it's not only about physical fighting.  fights more often than not don't even become physical.  but if they do, it would be best to use correct amount of force if one has the ability to control that.
of course there are times when an attack is the best defense-  but an attack is an attack and may provoke only more violence. 
difficult topic selfdefense because different people will be different and have different skill levels.

j


----------



## morph4me (Feb 1, 2008)

IMO self defense is doing whatever has to be done to get yourself home to your family. Self defense stops when the percieved threat has ended, if you continue after that point, you become the aggressor and not the defender.

When I was growing up I had to defend myself quite a bit as I was a bit of a nerd. Sometimes all it took was a word or a look, usually after I made up my mind that I was going to have to fight. Other times we basically beat each other until someone stopped or it was broken up, and other times I defended myself by hitting the other guy first, it was obvious where it was going, and the only other option was to wait to get hit, I opted for preemptive self defense, did that make me the aggressor? I don't think so, but opinions may vary.


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

I'm extremely impressed with all the feedback and opinions given so far, and it is helping me quite a bit to really get it set right in my own head.  Its really a good subject to discuss as it not only stimulates the mind, but keeps the awareness up of how serious "Self Defense" can really be when it comes down to the brass tacks heh.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> More or less about crossing that aggressor/defender line.
> 
> In one aspect, I don't want to teach my students to be overly aggressive, after all this is supposed to be "Self Defense" but on the other hand, I think there is a very real need to know some of the techniques and to encourage a certain degree of aggression. The problem is, I'm not sure how to clearly describe where that line is, I can only really point out to them when you'll know you've crossed it.


 
You go until the threat is stopped, when you go beyond that you have crossed that line you are worried about.  That isn't technique training, that is training the student to evaluate the situation.  

Lamont


----------



## Balrog (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.
> 
> Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.
> 
> It made me think for a long while and ask myself some questions which I have personally resolved but would make for quite a discussion on these boards. The biggest of these questions is to ask, "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?


A good place to start is with the concept of the Force Continuum. This originated in law enforcement, but there is a growing trend towards application in the civilian area as well. A good discussion is at http://www.usadojo.com/articles/civilian-force-continuum.htm.

Here's an example I use that might help illustrate the concept. You are in a parking lot and someone comes onto you trying to start a fight. He's yelling, fists doubled up, etc. You raise your hands to chest level, palms out and say, "Dude, I don't want any trouble." You attempt to disengage and start to back away. He follows you, continuing the verbal assault. You escalate to stage 2 of the continuum - look him in the eye and say forcefully: "STOP! I do not want to fight you!".

He now escalates and physically attacks you with a punch. You are now at level 3. You block and counter with a strike to the brachial plexus origin which stuns him and he drops to a knee. At this point, you can disengage and run away, and you should immediately do so. If you hit him again, an argument can be made (and probably will) that you have become the aggressor and have now assaulted him.



> It really made me think when we were having our discussion and while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training. I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly. Believe me, I don't see the world through rose colored glasses, there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?


Well, one decision about deadly force can be made easily - if a weapon of any kind appears in my opponent's hands, my life is now being threatened and I can respond with deadly force to save my own life.

If my opponent is unarmed but states his intent to kill me, an argument can be made that his attack constitutes deadly force. I better have witnesses to his threat, however. It will be really hard to prove it otherwise.

If I don't get either of these scenarios, I cannot justify using deadly force against an attacker. At least in my own mind, I can't. Someone else might.

My $0.02 worth....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 1, 2008)

A fight is a very serious thing not to be taken lightly if you get into one you have to live with the consequences of your actions or the injuries that you receive from it. 

I train police/military Sanda which was not designed to be nice or take into consideration how the other guy, *that is attacking me*, feels it is designed so if you have no choice and have to use it you can and will go home to your family relatively unscathed. It was designed for exactly what the name says Police and Military. 

I have said before it is simply a quick (quick meaning faster than many CMA styles but the training is not easy) way to learn how to hurt someone real bad. But if I were to go out and start beating people up my Sifu would stop training me. He will not train just anyone because he feels that it teaches you how to hurt someone and he does not want to be responsible for training someone that will go out and use Sanda to hurt people just because they can. His view of his skill and Sanda is it is a great way to stay in shape and if he had to he could protect himself and his family. 

I also train taiji which in application requires patients and you can keep someone at bay without hurting them if necessary. BUT there may be an occasion where you have no choice and it can do that too. 

If you are left with no choice fight and do all that you can to go home safe. If you have any other choice, take it and do not fight because fighting is a VERY serious thing.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 1, 2008)

heh.  Last night in class, I was helping my instructor demonstrate a technique to some higher-belt students.  As he went through the steps, he provided commentary:  "And then after we snap the neck, we chop to the throat, claw the face, and then cover out."  Or something like that.

Overkill?  What overkill?


----------



## kailat (Feb 1, 2008)

1st off Meeting force with force is what most of us assume is valuable tool in self defense.

  If one can deflect and or stop the initial attack before it is started or within a few moves then that is self defense.  (this again is also derived from the specific aggressive attack)

If it's a punk in a bar, or at a restraunt or uncle Jimmy at the family reunion then self defense is and can be met w/ a simple restraining tech or simple set of movements.  

 Each scenario is different. Each attack is different.  Each MOTIVE is different.  So to say one way is better than another way is left up to the situation.  A self defense in a bar can escalate faster and deadlier than that at say a public restraunt or somewhere of that nature.

 The force continuum which was posted earlier is a great starting place.  If your worried about the law and when is enough enough.. thats the best place to start.  

 IN FMA we teach WEAPONS and KNIFE so therefore what we teach is a real touchy situation.  Kali is kill mentality plain and simple.  So why do we just teach this to anyone?  

 Not knowing much about KENPO/KEMPO other than its origin it sees simular.

 NINJUTSU from my own distinction that i've studied is a good base to learn self defense.  But that may not be enough in some eyes.

 Firearm training is essential for alot of self defense training these days.  Your local Police Dept put on courses and explain the dos and don'ts of such situations.

 Again, fighting / self defense is dangerous at all cost no matter what the deal is.  The winner is he who goes home safe  that night.

 A great man once said "It's better to learn a few tech's and practice them a thousand times, than to learn a thousand tech's and pactice them a few times"... 

Many martial arts do "Cross that OVERKILL line" its up to you as a mature adult to know when and where that line is at.  Or you'll be finding yourself from victim to  suspect real fast


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 1, 2008)

I think that the victim becomes the agressor at the point they DO MORE than is necessary to stop the attacker.

I like to say, "Doing more than is necessary is vengence/malice, do only what is necessary to survive".  Notice, I didn't say WIN.  When your life is on the line, it isn't a game or some school yard duel.  You have a duty to yourself to protect your own life.

In addition to that, I believe as humans we should also try to save life.  This means even saving the life of the attacker, if at all possible.  Sometimes they don't leave anyone with a choice to save their life, and in those cases, they lose it.  But to dole out death and destruction indiscriminately is ego/hatred/malice/carelessness/recklessness, etc and IMO that is just not that much different than the attacker.

Just my opinion.  Oh, and we talk that "cut here, there, break this, etc" in class.  But you cannot let anger and malice guide your actions.  Of course I think fear of dying has a way of tempering the anger and malice and it is likely to temper the response as well.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Dale said:


> In my opinion the ethical issue of self defense is pretty much inline with the ideas of reasonableness of force, as defined in Australian law.
> Problems arise in martial arts systems when those systems are not accommodating of this concept of reasonableness, in that they offer nothing in the way of scaled responses. If extreme violence or lethal force is the only trained response to all levels of assault, then it could be argued in many cases the idea of reasonableness will be exceeded and these techniques will qualify as excessive force.
> 
> On a side note, when extreme violence is the only response trained for all levels of assaults, then it is likely the trained fighter will offer no response or inadequate/disorganised responses to assaults that do not meet that persons own criteria to respond in the manner in which they are trained.


 
Hi Dale, welcome to the forums.  

How dangerous do you consider a punch?  What would you consider an "extreme violence" response to a punch, versus what you would consider an "acceptable" level of force?  For the sake of the question, I'll grant that breaking the guys neck would be "extreme."  

Can I strike the guy in the throat?
Can I knee him in the groin?
Can I possibly cripple him by folding his knee?

Give me an idea about what you view as "acceptable force" in the context of a punch.

Thanks,

Lamont


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.

Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

Granted, any trained fighter knows the danger zones that could likely lead to the death of their attacker, palm strikes to the nose, neck breaks, certain areas of the head, blood chokes, airway chokes, there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.

When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed. Our training is diverse, we teach you many ways to avoid having to use lethal force in defending yourself as well as how to apply lethal force when you have no other choice. Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it.  Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.


----------



## Bigshadow (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.




Maybe, you could just subdue him, pull out your cell phone and call 911, or get a bystander to call 911, so the perp can be punished for his crimes, at the very least (or if too dangerous), disarm the perp, flee the scene, call 911 and give them a good description.  Although, it isn't about making them pay, but about surviving.  No matter the perp's intent, once they have been disarmed, you cannot turn around and use the weapon on them.  It would be nice to be able to return the favor.    But that is vengeful and is not a balanced mind.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.
> 
> Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Motion is motion. If you think studying the utilization of that motion is assault, I can't help you; however, you shouldn't be fighting if its not important enough to execute. What exactly do you think is over the line?
Sean


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.
> Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.



Your situation is a fairly blatant example of use of excessive force, and I completely agree that in the situation that you have given you've gone over the line.  But to expand on some of the options you have given:



> Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.


 
If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not?  Why?

Is "throwing the knife away" something you would recommend? is "putting yourself on equal grounds" something you would recommend?

Lamont


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

> If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not?  Why?



At that point, I wouldn't consider it a deadly force situation for me, I have control of the weapon he tried to use against me, the largest of the threats is over. However unlikely that it is that he would actually want to continue after what just happened, should that happen I would use my training to defend myself, break contact once I was able, and get away from the situation.



> Is "throwing the knife away" something you would recommend? is "putting yourself on equal grounds" something you would recommend?



I don't think I have a right or am qualified to "recommend" anything, each situation we are confronted with is different. In my situation, I would get the knife out of the picture, at least then neither of us would have to worry about being carted away on a stretcher with a steel blade plunged into one of our extremities. Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Motion is motion. If you think studying the utilization of that motion is assault, I can't help you; however, you shouldn't be fighting if its not important enough to execute. What exactly do you think is over the line?
> Sean


 
I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife.  If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.

Lamont


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

> Maybe, you could just subdue him, pull out your cell phone and call 911, or get a bystander to call 911, so the perp can be punished for his crimes, at the very least (or if too dangerous), disarm the perp, flee the scene, call 911 and give them a good description. Although, it isn't about making them pay, but about surviving. No matter the perp's intent, once they have been disarmed, you cannot turn around and use the weapon on them. It would be nice to be able to return the favor.   But that is vengeful and is not a balanced mind.



Well said Bigshadow, btw nice to see a Bujinkan member on board here, I studied at the Dexter Bujinkan Dojo here in Michigan for a long long time before being forced to switch to another art after enlisting. 

What I meant by the turning the knife on the attacker was to be used as an intimidation ploy, he had a knife which was his tool to accomplish his goal, now the person he attacked has it and is threatening him with it, most attackers would back off and run at that point unless they are strung out crack addicts or are just plain crazy.  There were a good many things that could have been done once gaining control of the situation, I could have choked him out and once I got him on the ground called 911, or I could have simply chucked the knife and put feet to pavement in an attempt to flee the situation. hehe.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 1, 2008)

Blindside said:


> I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife. If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.
> 
> Lamont


The techs are ideas of motion. Given that dance of death should be over once his head cracks the sidewalk, the "dance of death" part is for a still struggling opponent who may or may not have a knife or gun. The idea that you keep going until the bad guy is no longer a threat is just good common sense and not so much over kill. When fighting with a knife, you kill the guy plain and simple. Create bloodflow and he stops trying to kill you. The end.
sean


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

Blindside said:


> I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife.  If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.
> 
> Lamont



That is pretty much the perception that I had regarding some of the techniques, and the problem really rests on how you tell the difference. When you are told to repetitiously practice a technique like for instance your "fillet the bad guy" knife technique, it becomes second nature to you and when a situation arises and that technique is called upon, it could be enacted and have grave consequence.  Like I originally said, this post was not necessarily meant to be aimed at just Kenpo/Kempo, it was simply mentioned because that's where my original thoughts were created during a conversation with a few students of that art. Ninjutsu could also be pointed at or any number of martial arts, there are just some techniques that if used would really be crossing that line.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> At that point, I wouldn't consider it a deadly force situation for me, I have control of the weapon he tried to use against me, the largest of the threats is over. However unlikely that it is that he would actually want to continue after what just happened, should that happen I would use my training to defend myself, break contact once I was able, and get away from the situation.


 
I have a very different viewpoint, that guy is now trying to get his weapon back, a weapon that he has already shown intention and willingness to use, I am in a deadly force situation. 



> I don't think I have a right or am qualified to "recommend" anything, each situation we are confronted with is different. In my situation, I would get the knife out of the picture, at least then neither of us would have to worry about being carted away on a stretcher with a steel blade plunged into one of our extremities. Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed.


 
Again, I have a different viewpoint, I would never give up an advantage once achieved.  If he is going to press the situation when I have the advantage it is his loss.

Lamont


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

I think this is really a matter of differences in the types of arts we're in and personalities of the people discussing the situation. Your thinking tactical advantage, I'm thinking get the biggest problem (the knife) out of the way and get out of dodge hehe. 

Because this is a "what if" situational discussion more than anything else you could say either one of us could be right in our actions at that point. We don't know what the attacker is going to do next, is he going to attack again? Is he going to back away now that his perceived advantage of having a knife is gone? Who knows. 

Your training puts you into a different mindset than my training puts me into, both styles work, they just have different mechanics in getting there. 

/bows respectfully.


----------



## Blindside (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> That is pretty much the perception that I had regarding some of the techniques, and the problem really rests on how you tell the difference. When you are told to repetitiously practice a technique like for instance your "fillet the bad guy" knife technique, it becomes second nature to you and when a situation arises and that technique is called upon, it could be enacted and have grave consequence.


 
Training a tech like that doesn't make you an automoton, particularly on kenpo techs that have some ridiculous numbers of moves.  They are examples of motion.  In the one fight I was in as an adult it was over in seconds, I wound up hitting the guy twice, I stopped when he fell over.  Why?  Because the threat was over, and I recognized it just like I was trained to do.  I didn't hit him a hundred times, I didn't do Dance of Death and stomp him into a bloody puddle.  He fell over, I exited stage right.  I'm not a killing machine despite years of training in you would call "combative systems."  

good conversation,

Lamont


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 1, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Training a tech like that doesn't make you an automoton, particularly on kenpo techs that have some ridiculous numbers of moves. They are examples of motion. In the one fight I was in as an adult it was over in seconds, I wound up hitting the guy twice, I stopped when he fell over. Why? Because the threat was over, and I recognized it just like I was trained to do. I didn't hit him a hundred times, I didn't do Dance of Death and stomp him into a bloody puddle. He fell over, I exited stage right. I'm not a killing machine despite years of training in you would call "combative systems."
> 
> good conversation,
> 
> Lamont


Says you... LOL


----------



## thardey (Feb 1, 2008)

As I understand the Law in Oregon, there are two categories of "force" that you are judged by: Physical Force, and Deadly Physical Force.

If you are attacked with Physical Force, you can respond with physical force. But for me, a M.A. Trained physically fit, large man, "physical force" is a very limited scope. Pushing, trapping/locking, and grabbing are probably appropriate. Maybe open-hand "slapping." If I make a fist, though, I'm getting into a gray area. If I take a lock too far, and maim the person, I've crossed the line.

Anything that _could_ cause "serious" bodily harm, (maiming, crippling, damage to any organ, or death) is in the "deadly physical force" category.

That includes any kind of weapon, whether a stick, or a shotgun. Once a knife is involved, or a deadly empty hand tech, that line is crossed, and a weapon, or deadly technique is required, and justified, to counter it. (In other words, you can legally bring a gun to a knife fight.)

This falls under the "Ability" category: does the attacker have the _ability_ to cause you serious bodily injury? If yes, (Along with the other requirements: Opportunity, Imminent Jeopoardy, and Preclusion, which are material for another thread) you're in a deadly force realm, and you'd better be prepared to deal with it. 

If they don't have the ability to cause you serious bodily injury (basically, you're sure you can take them), then no, you can't use most of the strikes taught in these "self defense" classes. You could basically push (not violently shove) them away and leave (since you're not really being threatened anyway) or hold them to keep them out of trouble. Basically imagine what you could legally do to a kid that you know couldn't hurt you.

At least, that's how it was explained to me.

Here's an interesting take on the "I'll hurt them enough to escape" thinking:

Part 1

(The meat of the article is in part 2)
Part 2



> By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. The law has never broken these 2 apart, Chudwin says, which is what Patersons proposal tried to do. Hes saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about just a little bit. Any time you fire a firearm, theres a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesnt even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. Thats plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message.


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 1, 2008)

Well it is like I said, it is really a matter of the individual and their ability to use good judgement when it comes to what to use and when to use it. The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training." 

I witnessed a fight back when I was still in High School (twitches at how long ago that actually was), involving a kid who was training in our art versus an untrained bully that just wouldn't leave him alone. The kid pulled out the entire arsenal on that bully and just destroyed him, almost killed him in fact, had that palm thrust been any harder to the nose, the bully would have died for sure.  Both the combatants were reprimanded and there was a law suit and all other kinds of chaos that followed, and eventually it came down to removing the student from the art because of the lack of discipline and use of what at the time was considered deadly force. 

I guess it's really about the person and how they use the tools, we can't truly say "this art is a pure gore producing slaughter system" if the techniques are being properly applied and used with discipline and self control in self defense situations.


----------



## thardey (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> Well it is like I said, it is really a matter of the individual and their ability to use good judgement when it comes to what to use and when to use it. The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training."
> 
> I witnessed a fight back when I was still in High School (twitches at how long ago that actually was), involving a kid who was training in our art versus an untrained bully that just wouldn't leave him alone. The kid pulled out the entire arsenal on that bully and just destroyed him, almost killed him in fact, had that palm thrust been any harder to the nose, the bully would have died for sure.  Both the combatants were reprimanded and there was a law suit and all other kinds of chaos that followed, and eventually it came down to removing the student from the art because of the lack of discipline and use of what at the time was considered deadly force.
> 
> I guess it's really about the person and how they use the tools, we can't truly say "this art is a pure gore producing slaughter system" if the techniques are being properly applied and used with discipline and self control in self defense situations.



I think you really did hit it there. I would like to see a *lot* more time spent on discussing the appropriate use of force and the legal aspects _especially_ in "self-defense" classes. If you're learning for forms, or for competition, then okay, that responsibility is shifted, but in self-defense, you gotta be able to take responsibility for what you decide to do.


----------



## Dale (Feb 1, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Hi Dale... How dangerous do you consider a punch?  What would you consider an "extreme violence" response to a punch, versus what you would consider an "acceptable" level of force?  For the sake of the question, I'll grant that breaking the guys neck would be "extreme."
> 
> Can I strike the guy in the throat?
> Can I knee him in the groin?
> ...




Hello Lamont,
Thank you for your welcome, I will try answer your questions starting with "_How dangerous do you consider a punch?_".
To me this depends entirely on the person delivering the punch and the context in which it is delivered. I have received a number of punches, some I considered credible serious threats to my safety -  which could reasonably be replied to with joint breaks  or any of those tactics you described  ie. 
"_..strike the guy in the throat... knee him in the groin... possibly cripple him by folding his knee_". 
Those punches that I did not perceive as credible threats were often replied to using much softer responses.

So basically a punch delivered by my friends drunken grandmother or 12 year old cousin might not be that great a threat, but a punch delivered by a 115kg steroid raging member of a 4 man group intent on doing me serious harm would be taken as a more serious attack.

This is what I was referring to as "reasonableness" and demonstrates the importance of being able to scale our responses. 



Respectfully,
Dale


----------



## exile (Feb 1, 2008)

Dale said:


> Hello Lamont,
> Thank you for your welcome, I will try answer your questions starting with "_How dangerous do you consider a punch?_".
> To me this depends entirely on the person delivering the punch and the context in which it is delivered. I have received a number of punches, some I considered credible serious threats to my safety -  which could reasonably be replied to with joint breaks  or any of those tactics you described  ie.
> "_..strike the guy in the throat... knee him in the groin... possibly cripple him by folding his knee_".
> ...



Well, then, in a sense you've answered your own implicit question, Dale. You are not going to get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.

I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsely if someone tries to do open-ended damage to me&#8212;and why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron, and given that _they_ are attacking _you_, while you had no intent to do _them_ any harm, I believe you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat.

Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice. Would anyone really expect me, or anyone else, to peruse the ethical nicities of force modulation, in real time, under those circumstances? I want, and believe I deserve, to live; I have a wife, a child and other relatives who depend on me. The attacker who tries to harm me is attacking them as well. If my response results in severe damage to my attacker&#8212;and I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happen&#8212;can anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?


----------



## Guardian (Feb 1, 2008)

*It's pretty simple in my book, if they attack me, no matter what I do, it's self-defense on my part for they initiated the aggression, not me.*

*Now, I do agree that you can cross a line in defending yourself and we have discussed that possibility quite abit here and outside of here I would venture to say.  If I defend myself and put my attacker down and he/she does not want to continue, then that's self-defense.  Now if I knowingly continue to punish him/her when I know they cannot or do not want to continue, then it goes to what you referred to as assault.*


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.
> 
> Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.
> 
> ...



If you choose to address use of force issues, there are two aspects you need to acquire proper training and education on.  First -- the legal.  Your questions in this thread really suggest that you DO NOT understand the legal issues surrounding use of force very well.  There are plenty of reference materials available; avail yourself of them.  Second -- the moral.  I know people who are true and committed pacifists; they'd rather be injured than injure someone else.  And I know people who would smash your skull as easily and as happily as they sit down to dinner.  You need to be able to help your students assess their own moral compass with regards to using force on someone else.



Blindside said:


> Your situation is a fairly blatant example of use of excessive force, and I completely agree that in the situation that you have given you've gone over the line.  But to expand on some of the options you have given:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's actually not that simple...  If the disarm and stab were on continuous action, with no time to reassess, you may well be okay, in a legal sense.  If there was a significant pause or you chased the guy to stab him... big problems loom.  



Guardian said:


> *It's pretty simple in my book, if they attack me, no matter what I do, it's self-defense on my part for they initiated the aggression, not me.*
> 
> *Now, I do agree that you can cross a line in defending yourself and we have discussed that possibility quite abit here and outside of here I would venture to say.  If I defend myself and put my attacker down and he/she does not want to continue, then that's self-defense.  Now if I knowingly continue to punish him/her when I know they cannot or do not want to continue, then it goes to what you referred to as assault.*



A few general points (discussed at length in other threads...); the usual caveat that this is NOT legal advice and you should only get legal advice from a qualified attorney apply:

Lethal force is any force reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  You are generally justified in using sufficient force to stop an imminent threat; this typically justifies using like force for civilians, but you may be justified in using more force in specific situations.  It's not a "if x, then y is justified" calculus.  Too much turns on the specifics of the attack.

Also, as a general rule, you're permitted to DEFEND yourself.  Once the attacker stops attacking or you reinitiate the conflict -- you become the attacker.  Note that law enforcement officers have a different duty than a civilian; a civilian's task is to GET AWAY, not subdue and restrain an attacker!


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 2, 2008)

Admin Note:  Thread moved to General Self-Defense forum.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Assist. Administrator


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 2, 2008)

haven't read the whole thread but here's a few thoughts on _real_ self-defense after seeing the original post:


The best defense is a good offense.
It changes from self-defense to assault only when they have indicated that they do not wish to continue, or when they are no longer capable of presenting a threat.
teaching limb destructions, eye, throat, and groin attacks etc. are just examples of some of the most efficient and effective methods for STOPPING THE THREAT.  Remember, we're dealing with someone who is trying to rob, rape, kill, or kidnap us and is willing to use violence to accomplish his goal.
As far as I'm concerned, someone who is serious about self-defense will be armed to the extent that they are legally allowed (from flashlight and OC-spray all the way up to knives and a pistol depending on your circumstances).  To ignore the advantage afforded by weapons, you are limiting your options and reducing your chances of success in the face of a violent criminal threat.


----------



## MJS (Feb 2, 2008)

Sanchin-J said:


> Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.
> 
> Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.
> 
> ...


 
I came across this.  Certainly an interesting read.  Now, let me pose a scenario to you.  As you round the corner and this person pulls the knife, you have a permit to carry a handgun.  You pull the gun and shoot the person.  Now, you're faced with deadly force, and some will say that you're in the right to shoot.  Obviously the difference in the original situation is using his own weapon against him.  

As I said before...it is up to the individual to assess each situation.  Chances are, if this goes to court, we're already going to be under the microscope due to our training.  I would say that if the choice was to disarm and in the process cause serious harm to the attacker, ie: a broken arm or nose, compared to killing the guy, I'd rather opt for the first.  But given the situation, I feel that you'd be in the right.

Just wanted to add this:  Speaking only for myself here, my health and well being as well as the well being of my wife and family take top priority.  In todays world, we can't assume that handing over the keys to our car or our money is going to mean that we're going to walk away.  Many times once you comply, you still get shot.  Do you want to take that chance?  

That being said, I'm going to do what I feel is necessary.  This is not to say that someone throwing a punch at you deserves to end up in ICU, but once a weapon is brought into the picture, they've just raised the odds.  I like to live by the motto: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 2, 2008)

MJS said:


> I came across this.



I have my issues with Jim Wagner.  He just added plagiarism; the color codes he discusses are simply a take on the well known Cooper's Color Code.  Even so -- he's presenting a decent model.  One thing I like is that he's aimed it at civilians; you can't simply take a LE use of force model and apply it to civilians.  Cops job is to take control of and arrest a person; a civilian's job is to get out of the self-defense situation alive, with minimal harm.



> Certainly an interesting read.  Now, let me pose a scenario to you.  As you round the corner and this person pulls the knife, you have a permit to carry a handgun.  You pull the gun and shoot the person.  Now, you're faced with deadly force, and some will say that you're in the right to shoot.  Obviously the difference in the original situation is using his own weapon against him.
> 
> As I said before...it is up to the individual to assess each situation.  Chances are, if this goes to court, we're already going to be under the microscope due to our training.  I would say that if the choice was to disarm and in the process cause serious harm to the attacker, ie: a broken arm or nose, compared to killing the guy, I'd rather opt for the first.  But given the situation, I feel that you'd be in the right.
> 
> ...



I'm personally sick of that saying.  I'd rather avoid either -- and it IS possible to defend yourself within the law.  And it's possible to learn enough about the legal system to keep your actions within the bounds of the law.  

With that in mind -- I do agree with the mindset you express.  If I'm attacked -- I'm defending myself or those under my protection, with everything necessary to end the attack.  Depending on the scenario, that may be running away and calling the cavalry, it might be simply evading or containing my drunken idiot brother -- or it may be using lethal force.  I address the legal concerns by learning them and studying them, and incorporating them into my training, so that when I need to use them under pressure, I don't have to worry about figuring it out.


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 2, 2008)

theres no time to think much when a situation arises.  better to think about it really realistically and honestly beforehand as well as also train/act accordingly.

j


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 2, 2008)

Okay, I'll tackle this one from the top now that I've had time to read the whole thread.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.


 Then what exactly is *your* definition of "self-defense?"



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?


This one's been answered by a few people. The line is crossed when you continue your action after they are no longer a threat. This can be because they somehow indicated that they are no longer pursuing their attack, or because you have rendered them incapable of continuing.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, *I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training.*


 That's a good thing 




			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly.


 Because real self-defense is not training to deal with a bully at school or an idiot at the bar (though those are situations that should be addressed) but rather to deal with a _violent criminal attack_.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?


 Your state laws define what is/is not deadly/lethal force and when such force is appropriate. Check your local laws and if you're unclear, pay for an hour with an attorney who specializes in criminal law.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> I think for the most part defining Self Defense is based on the individual, their perspective on the situation and their ability to exercise control in the force they use while defending themselves.


 Pretty much...so why wouldn't it follow that there are situations where a high level of force is called for?



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Perhaps I worry too much, but I just can't see cutting off someone's arm so they can't swing at you, or bludgeoning them senselessly when you could have simply taken out a knee cap and stepped back from the situation.


So, in your opinion, knocking someone unconscious is worse than blowing out their knee and causing them permanent damage?



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> I do think however that in certain martial arts, the methods to achieve such an outcome should probably not be considered "Self Defense" techniques as they most certainly step beyond the normal line between defending and assault...
> Is it feasible to call your martial arts training "Self Defense" if the martial arts school your studying in focuses on techniques and training that make you the aggressor rather than the defender?


Once again, the line between defender and aggressor is a legal distinction and depends on whether the threat is still present. Agression by the attacker must be met with aggression, otherwise you're wasting your time.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> More or less about crossing that aggressor/defender line.
> 
> In one aspect, I don't want to teach my students to be overly aggressive, after all this is supposed to be "Self Defense" but on the other hand, I think there is a very real need to know some of the techniques and to encourage a certain degree of aggression. The problem is, I'm not sure how to clearly describe where that line is, I can only really point out to them when you'll know you've crossed it.


So is this one of those "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it" situations . Seriously, and I mean no offense here, if you are an instructor who claims to be teaching self-defense, you need to have this sorted out. You need to understand the legalities of the issue based on the laws in your area (like I said, go talk to a lawyer). And you need to work on your understanding of what constitutes self-defense in the context of a criminal assault. Instructors who have an unrealistic, improper, or incomplete view of the situation end up doing their students a disservice because they end up teaching material that may not be appropriate for the situation. I believe that the idea of "unreasonable force" can apply to using _too little_ force just as much as it applies to using _too much_ force. 



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.


 If he continued the attack, I don't feel that throwing the weapon away to "put us on even grounds" would be advisable. Read through this thread as this issue was addressed specifically there.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, *there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.*


That applies to us just as it does to the bad guy...that is why our response to a violent attack MUST be overwhelming violence to stop the attack. We don't want to be the one that gets severely hurt or killed.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed.


As I said before, YOU need to be clear on this yourself before you try to teach others.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it.


Agreed, the drunk at the bar or the bully in high-school may not require the same response as a meth-head with a screw-driver at 2:00 am in the gas-station parking lot.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.


hmm...As I said before, your response should be proportional to the attack. If someone attacks me with deadly force, I'm going to respond in kind (probably by putting 4 or 5 rounds into their high-center chest followed by more to the head if they don't go down after the first burst)



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Blindside said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


IMO, as I said in the thread I linked for you earlier, his [attempted] use of a weapon is an indication that he intends to do you serious harm. If he continues his attack after you have disarmed him, his intention has not changed...it's still a deadly force situation.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed


If that's the way you feel, so be it...however, I don't think that's necessarily the best thing to be teaching.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> he had a knife which was his tool to accomplish his goal, now the person he attacked has it and is threatening him with it, most attackers would back off and run at that point unless they are strung out crack addicts or are just plain crazy.


 And if he does not run and is one of those who is "a strung out crack addict or just plain crazy" do you feel that you can handle him empty handed? (the fact that you were lucky enough to disarm him notwithstanding). EDP's and those under the influence of narcotics are scary people to deal with as I'm sure the LEO's on the board will confirm.



			
				Sanchin-J said:
			
		

> The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, *it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training."*


Just "nit-picking" your terms here...As far as I'm concerned, good self-defense training should not be much different than "combative training." Sadly, the "martial" has been taken out of martial-arts these days leaving people with a system that is about as effective in dealing with a violent attack as ballroom dancing would be. I _strongly_ recommend you read "Principles of Personal Defense" by Col. Jeff Cooper for a good rundown of the *proper* self-defense mindset.

Okay, I'm done...

Seriously, I'm not trying to pick on you. In fact, I commend you for confronting the issues and trying to find some answers and clarify your thinking. My main point is that when we are faced with violence we can not afford to "be nice" or have any mercy for our attacker until the threat has been neutralized and we have to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve our goal of stopping the threat. The "peaceful warrior"/Mr. Miyagi crap sounds great in theory but it doesn't work too well if you find yourself facing some guy who just spent the last few years in prison (probably lifting weights most of that time) and now sees you as his ticket to his next "fix."


----------



## chinto (Feb 2, 2008)

ok, first of all if you are really worried about it, consult an attorney and ask about your  state / national  laws dealing with self defense, and any restrictions there in.
that said, the law in most western states of the United States of America  is  the reasonable man  doctrine.  that comes down to basically, 1 would a normal person have been in fear of attack or injury or death? 2 would he have done a lot less harm then that and or used less force?   so if you have a 10 year old kid with a switch come at you and you kick his ribs in or brake his arm and kick his knee cap off.. you are provably in real trouble.. now make that a larger stick and a kid or 15 or a man of 20 and you do that kind of damage you are justified.  if a knife or gun is involved or reason to believe he or she intends to kill or maim you, its normally considered a deadly force situation.  basically you have to judge each situation for yourself and then figure the cops and lawyers will be involved.  just remember though that if you are in the hospital and maybe maimed or crippled for life, or dead .. you are a lot worse of then if you are in one piece and dealing with the law.  my advice is do what you have to do to brake contact and get clear unharmed.  if that means you have to cripple or kill some one.. do it! if it means kick em once in the groin or poke them in the eye and brake a finger or two and run.. do that.


----------



## Dale (Feb 4, 2008)

exile said:


> Well, then, in a sense you've answered your own implicit question, Dale. You are not going to get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.
> 
> I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsely if someone tries to do open-ended damage to meand why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron, and given that _they_ are attacking _you_, while you had no intent to do _them_ any harm, I believe you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat.
> 
> Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice. Would anyone really expect me, or anyone else, to peruse the ethical nicities of force modulation, in real time, under those circumstances? I want, and believe I deserve, to live; I have a wife, a child and other relatives who depend on me. The attacker who tries to harm me is attacking them as well. If my response results in severe damage to my attackerand I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happencan anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?



Hello Exile,
With respect I did not post a question but rather I posted a clarification of my position on the topic.

It seems you and I live very different lives, or perhaps are at very different stages of our lives, as I have had numerous punches thrown in my direction and in every case have acted in accord with my training. Thankfully my training allows for each response to be scaled in a manner to suit the individual circumstance. Had I acted in the way you describe, that is to presume every punch is thrown with lethal intent, I would be serving a very long time in one of our fine corrective facilities.

For example, some of the people who have meant me some degree of harm include a number of elderly or infirm people affected by medications, senile dementia, alcohol withdrawal, drug addictions, various states of psychoses, post traumatic stress syndrome or other disorders  that found them in my care. I presume the majority of these individuals had family and friends who loved them and in many cases relied on them in various ways.

As a parent I am sure you can appreciate my decision to exercise "due discretion" and a scaled response to violence directed at me by the countless drug and alcohol affected youths, both male and female, while working at various nightclubs, pubs, and entertainment venues.

Though all of these assaults took place in the course of my employment in various jobs they should be considered no less self defense than an assault that takes place in a parking lot, as I am not employed as a professional fighter or punching bag! 

In the few instances where I have been assaulted by individuals or groups outside of my employment I have acted in accord with the threat and am proud to have lived to tell the tale and learn the lessons.

Life is not black and white, interpersonal interactions, be they positive or negative are complex things and I know that the friends and relatives of the people with whom I have had altercations are thankful that it was myself and not someone who shares your combative ethos that was the target of their relatives misguided aggression. With that I can say I share the original sentiment echoed by Sanchin-J in their original post.

I am new to this forum so am unaware of your individual personalities and experiences however I encourage you to open your combative eyes and see the world for what it is. There are shades of grey in all things, this is not a black and white world with goodies and baddies. I am as aware and capable as anyone of the kill or be killed mentality, however such mindset is best reserved for the battlefield or life and death struggle, there needs to be appropriate levels of engagement for all combative encounters. That is if one intends to act within the bounds of the law.

To clarify, I am actually saying that kill or be killed type thinking does constitute self defense, however the original question posted by Sanchin-J was one of ethics not self defense. I myself teach scaled responses ranging from minimal intervention to lethal force where necessary, emphasis on the where necessary!
Even in war there are levels of engagement, decisions are made through  intelligence gained. 
I agree with your comment that "_you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat_" and I advocate your right to defend your life by whatever means necessary, that is a right of all people. However I also raise the idea that threat assessment needs to be realistic and in combat, as in all things there are grey areas.



Dale


----------



## MJS (Feb 4, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I have my issues with Jim Wagner. He just added plagiarism; the color codes he discusses are simply a take on the well known Cooper's Color Code. Even so -- he's presenting a decent model. One thing I like is that he's aimed it at civilians; you can't simply take a LE use of force model and apply it to civilians. Cops job is to take control of and arrest a person; a civilian's job is to get out of the self-defense situation alive, with minimal harm.


 
Agreed.  I just posted it for a reference. 





> I'm personally sick of that saying. I'd rather avoid either


 
Agreed again.  I've said many times that if you can talk your way out of something first, do it.  If there is no time for that, or if that option fails, defending yourself is the only thing left.  




> -- and it IS possible to defend yourself within the law. And it's possible to learn enough about the legal system to keep your actions within the bounds of the law.


 
And thats why its important for the average person to know the laws.  Talking to a LEO, lawyer, etc and asking serious questions is a good start.  





> With that in mind -- I do agree with the mindset you express. If I'm attacked -- I'm defending myself or those under my protection, with everything necessary to end the attack. Depending on the scenario, that may be running away and calling the cavalry, it might be simply evading or containing my drunken idiot brother -- or it may be using lethal force. I address the legal concerns by learning them and studying them, and incorporating them into my training, so that when I need to use them under pressure, I don't have to worry about figuring it out.


----------



## exile (Feb 4, 2008)

Dale said:


> There are cases and forums where these techniques are appropriate but civilian use is not among them if this is the only response taught.]





Dale said:


> So basically a punch delivered by my friends drunken grandmother or 12 year old cousin might not be that great a threat, but a punch delivered by a 115kg steroid raging member of a 4 man group intent on doing me serious harm would be taken as a more serious attack.
> 
> This is what I was referring to as "reasonableness" and demonstrates the importance of being able to scale our responses.



OK, so here are two things you say which, to me, appear to be a bit at odds...




Dale said:


> Hello Exile,
> With respect I did not post a question but rather I posted a clarification of my position on the topic.



... and I was referring to what you were saying as a question, rather than the apparent contradiction it seemed to be, as per the two passages from your posts I've quoted, because taken together, they read as an implicit question: when is what level of force justified? In your first post, we have a blanket statement that appears to condemn high-intensity responses in civil contexts across the board. In the second, you make a major distinction between scenarios, one of which is going to be fairly minor and trivial and the others of which are life-threatening. My comment that you had answered your own question was a preface to what I would have thought was fairly obvious: in the second kind of scenario, extreme violent empty-handed responses are indeed justified by the circumstances. 




> [B[It seems you and I live very different lives, or perhaps are at very different stages of our lives,[/B] as I have had numerous punches thrown in my direction and in every case have acted in accord with my training.



Very likely. I'm 60 years old, lived much of my life in New York City and have a perspective on street violence which reflect both of those facts. 




Dale said:


> Thankfully my training allows for each response to be scaled in a manner to suit the individual circumstance. Had I acted in *the way you describe, that is to presume every punch is thrown with lethal intent, *I would be serving a very long time in one of our fine corrective facilities.



Since I clearly specified the circumstances which I regarded as evidence of lethal intent&#8212;street attacks, assaults by thugs or dangerous defectives in confined spaces and so on&#8212;I have to say I have no idea of where you got the impression that I was saying that every punch ever thrown required deadly force in response.  Let's take a look at some of the cases you mention:




Dale said:


> For example, some of the people who have meant me some degree of harm include a number of elderly or infirm people affected by medications, senile dementia, alcohol withdrawal, drug addictions, various states of psychoses, post traumatic stress syndrome or other disorders  that found them in my care. I presume the majority of these individuals had family and friends who loved them and in many cases relied on them in various ways.



I have to say, I'm baffled by these comments. I itemize a specific set of dangerous scenarios involving street violence, and you then respond with a set of circumstances which have nothing to due with the scenarios I mention and insist that these people should not be subject to the kind of response I specifically identified as appropriate for the completely different situations I mentioned. I'm not sure how setting up this kind of straw man advances the discussion, which seems to me to center on whether or not training for extreme violent defensive responses is ever justified _as_ defense. I gave a number of examples where I think a good case can be made. Your response that defense at level would be inappropriate for an elderly person suffering from senile dementia is true but _irrelevant_, since neither that situation, nor any of the others you mention, is covered by the range of cases I provided. And it is _that_ range, not the ones you refer to, which is the target of almost all MA training, regardless of style.



Dale said:


> As a parent I am sure you can appreciate my decision to exercise "due discretion" and a scaled response to violence directed at me by the countless drug and alcohol affected youths, both male and female, while working at various nightclubs, pubs, and entertainment venues.



As a parent with a family dependent on me to protect, I can tell you that if anyone, youth or not, affected by alcohol, drugs, or macho aggressiveness, presented me with a threat at the level of extreme danger that a hard-thrown punch at the head represents, I would see to it that they wound up on the ground, and stayed there long enough for there to be no further danger of attack from them. I am not talking about an attempted slap from some drunken customer; I'm talking about a clear intent to damage me via the standard swinging roundhouse, attempted headbutt, or any of the other habitual acts of violent assault initiation that your own Patrick McCarthy has done so much to document in street attack situations across different societies. If the elderly person whose case you seemed to think is relevant throws a punch at me, the deflection which is _part_ of my response when the two-time felon loser does it will be more than enough to keep them from contacting me without doing them any harm; the difference is that if the street punk throws _his_ version of the punch, the deflection is only the first step, and a hard elbow strike to his face, or a knifehand strike to his larynx, or some combination of those or similar moves, will be the last step. I train knifehand strike board breaks on three inch-thick board stacks, and when in my view my survival is at stake, I will use that same level of force on my attacker's throat. Period. In dealing with the kind of assailant I just identified, I believe I have no other rational choice.



Dale said:


> Though all of these assaults took place in the course of my employment in various jobs they should be considered no less self defense than an assault that takes place in a parking lot, as I am not employed as a professional fighter or punching bag!



I find this somewhat oddly put. Again, it seems to me something of a straw man to be rebutting a claim (which no one has actually made!) that the kind of relatively harmless assaults you refer to wouldn't count as self-defense. Clearly, any time you stop an unprovoked assault on your person, that counts as legitimate self-defense;  what is at issue is the level of danger. Not one person I know who trains for maximum effective street defense would say that you should respond to an obviously low level of physical hazard with maximum force, and furthermore, I don't know of a single street-effective combat system that gives you no options in handling a sub-lethal level of danger except to respond with lethal force yourself. Not karate, not the TKD I train in, not Hapkido, not jiujitsu... none of them give you an exclusive, maximum, level of response. What they do equip you to do is defend yourself in extremis&#8212;and if you train for that, you have no problem using a lower-grade version of the tech sequence simply by stopping before the point where you would direct a finishing strike to a soft-tissue target above the shoulders, or something equally effective in a survival-level violent encounter. The idea that unless you specifically train for lower-level response, you will execute a lethal technique sequence automatically without any choice because your training wires it  into you is the stuff of MA fantasy, I think.




Dale said:


> Life is not black and white, interpersonal interactions, be they positive or negative are complex things and I know that the friends and relatives of the people with whom I have had altercations are thankful that it was myself and not someone who shares your combative ethos that was the target of their relatives misguided aggression. With that I can say I share the original sentiment echoed by Sanchin-J in their original post.



Since, in spite of my explicit identification of deadly force situations, you are attributing to me an ethos&#8212;in all situations, act as though you were confronted with deadly force&#8212;which my own comments make clear is not mine, I think you need to read a bit more carefully before making such statements. In particular, consider again what I wrote to you in my first paragraph:




			
				exile said:
			
		

> You are not going to *get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby *by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.



Is it all that unclear here that I am identifying a set of circumstances in which exactly the kind of straw-men alternative scenarios you raise are _not_ going to happen, and am _excluding_ the old people and juveniles that you apparently think are relevant? I am talking about a particular kind of violent assault by a dangerous individual who is clearly intent on hurting you and has the capability of doing so, to a potentially deadly degree, if you do not defend yourself. The relatively few violent altercations I've been in in my adult life have been exactly of this kind. And there are plenty of people who have had the same kind of experience. 



Dale said:


> I am new to this forum so am unaware of your individual personalities and experiences however I encourage you to open your combative eyes and see the world for what it is.



I have, as I say, been seeing the world for what it is for more than six decades...



Dale said:


> There are shades of grey in all things, this is not a black and white world with goodies and baddies. I am as aware and capable as anyone of the kill or be killed mentality, however such mindset is best reserved for the battlefield or life and death struggle, there needs to be appropriate levels of engagement for all combative encounters. That is if one intends to act within the bounds of the law.



... and one of the things I have seen in the world as it is is that people are severely crippled or killed in street attacks by remorseless attackers who are either attempting to rob them, or gratifying the kind of sadistic impulse we find in bullies of every kind. I've seen it happen on NYC streets, and on the strees of Columbus, Ohio. And no, there are things in which there are _no_ shades of grey. An attempt on your life by someone well-equipped to take it has a very simple two-valued logic: you survive or you die. A serious attack on you, even without weapons, can get you killed, and therefore has to be treated as an attempt on your life. Equivocate in your own defense and you will very likely be fatally damaged or incapacitated, possibly permanently. If I have to defend myself against that kind of attack, then I will take my chances with the law, and trust my own judgment. 



Dale said:


> To clarify, I am actually saying that kill or be killed type thinking does constitute self defense, however the *original question posted by Sanchin-J was one of ethics not self defense.*



I find this a thoroughly false dichotomy. No system of ethics which does not recognize the primacy of survival in the face of unsought violence has the slightest claim on our consciences. And if the level of violence is, as you put it, 'kill or be killed', and thus self-defense, then if follows from what I just said that any ethical system which does not recognize the primacy of self-defense has any claim on our consciences. Your cases of less-than-deadly levels of attack are relevant here only to the extent that if someone responds with deadly force to a nonlethal level of threat, then there is a serious ethical issue that person's conduct raises, precisely because it is not clear that what they have done is confined to defense. And as I was very explicit about in the section of my post to you that I quoted, I was referring spcifically to lethal levels of threat&#8212;which the ordinary street attack must be presumed to be.




Dale said:


> However I also raise the idea that threat assessment needs to be realistic and in combat, as in all things there are grey areas.



Again&#8212;I cannot imagine that anyone would take a physically aggressive action by an Alzheimer's patient, or an attempt to push you out of the way by a falling-down-drunk cousin at a family event which went sideways, to be _combat_; I take 'combat' to involve a serious level of assault. But once we actually _get_ to that level, I do not believe things are at all grey. Someone who strikes at me in a way that makes it clear that they are willing, and able, to hurt me badly if they connect has, in my view, removed all greyness from the situation. Again, I am not saying that you are justified in damaging your attacker once he's clearly no longer a danger; but your first imperative has to be to ensure your own safety. And there are many situations of the kind I was referring to where, with the best will in the world, you have no choice but to damage your attacker severely enough to ensure that he is no longer capable of threatening you physically.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2008)

Most cogently constructed and argued as ever, my friend.

*Dale*, the way that you illustrate that you too can string intelligent sentences together gves me hope that you won't paint yourself into a corner on this issue.  Don't allow it to become an erudite pastiche of "'tis!" versus "'tisn't!".

It's an interesting topic and it has angles and depths that can reflect different concepts for different people dependant on their own circumstances and experience.  Bring those to the fore along with the hypotheticals and watch the discourse grow .


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 4, 2008)

Exile, outstanding post...I particularly like this part:


			
				exile said:
			
		

> No system of ethics which does not recognize the primacy of survival in the face of unsought violence has the slightest claim on our consciences.


----------



## Dale (Feb 4, 2008)

Hello Exile,
It seems we have both misread the others intent on this topic. The subject of your comment :"_so here are two things you say which, to me, appear to be a bit at odds..._" is actually an example of the clarification I described in my previous post. 
Though I can appreciate how you arrived at the conclusion you did I ask you to read the section quoted in your previous post again with the following emphasis added: _

Dale: "There are cases and forums where these techniques are appropriate but civilian use is not among them *if this is the only response taught*."_

This, at least to me, is a discussion on the scaled use of force, a point which has been consistent perhaps to the point of repetitive throughout my posts on this forum.

Now here is where I have misread your intention:



exile said:


> ...I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsel[essl]y if someone tries to do open-ended damage to meand why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron...
> Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice...
> If my response results in severe damage to my attackerand I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happencan anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?



Not knowing anything about you I have jumped to the conclusion that when you said these statements that you were of the opinion that all punches were to be considered lethal. I am glad to read that you in fact take circumstances including environment etc into account.

Now in consideration of your last post:



exile said:


> ...
> Very likely. I'm 60 years old, lived much of my life in New York City and have a perspective on street violence which reflect both of those facts.



Now this does reflect a different circumstance. The law will certainly view your response to violence and mine in a very different way given that I am half your age, with respect.





exile said:


> ...Let's take a look at some of the cases you mention:
> 
> ... Your response that defense at level would be inappropriate for an elderly person suffering from senile dementia is true but _irrelevant_, since neither that situation, nor any of the others you mention, is covered by the range of cases I provided. And it is _that_ range, not the ones you refer to, which is the target of almost all MA training, regardless of style.
> 
> ...



It seem that we are in agreement with regard to the ability and necessity to scale responses to varying circumstances. However the way you read my previous post appears full of assumptions that are unfortunately false. Something which I am not innocent in with regards to your posts, for which I apologize.
Many of the people suffering from the various disorders I listed (which was far wider than senile dementia) are younger than yourself. This is not intended as a stab at your age, but rather I mean to point out that at your age you sound very combatively able which these people most often are I can assure you. Many of them are veterans of wars including Vietnam and the first Gulf War. On more than one occasion we have had the local equivalent of the SWAT team in to deal with hostage type situations involving weapons, often improvised, of varying types.
Drug addiction and psychoses can and does affect people from all ages and walks of life and can lead to some extremely serious altercations, combined with the use of edged weapons this is no less serious than those situations you described.

With regards to working at pubs, clubs and entertainment venues the threat is no less serious. What did you think they were hitting me with if not round-swings or head-butts?... fluffy dice? 
If you find yourself in the company of a bouncer or doorman ask them about their last Friday or  Saturday night at work and you will hear a list of acts that exceeds swinging roundhouses or head-butts. Most nights see assaults from bikies, gangs of various types, weapon attacks and football players with too much drink, drugs or steroids pumping through their blood stream. In these cases the elbow to the face, chokeholds, throws, joint locks and dislocations, throat strikes etc are all commonly used defensive tactics, but all within reasonable bounds. With this it seems we are in agreement.

With respect to both of our intelligence the reason I highlighted those specific circumstances was to present the discussion with an alternate perspective on when and how serious violence occurs. 
Clearly this perspective does not resonate with you as it is outside of your current reality or lifestyle, which I can see, however this may not be the case for other members of this forum.



exile said:


> ... I don't know of a single street-effective combat system that gives you no options in handling a sub-lethal level of danger except to respond with lethal force yourself... none of them give you an exclusive, maximum, level of response. What they do equip you to do is defend yourself in extremisand if you train for that, you have no problem using a lower-grade version of the tech sequence simply by stopping before the point where you would direct a finishing strike to a soft-tissue target above the shoulders, or something equally effective in a survival-level violent encounter...



I am extremely pleased to read that we see eye to eye on this matter. I presumed, based on your first post, that you were of the "reality-based-combative-urban-street-warrior" type mentality for which I again apologize. There are people in those type of systems I have observed teaching students to respond with various weapons including knives, and to use finishing techniques such as head stomps or neck breaks against attacks such as punches or grabs.
It seems in the situations you describe we both tend to respond similarly, however I do hope that there are people on this forum who benefit from the alternative perspective I have offered and who can see that the concept of Self Defense covers many areas.

As a side issue here in Australia we are seeing an increase in drink spiking, which often sees otherwise peaceful guys turn crazy violent, and "glassing" attacks. Both these can change the lives of an otherwise nice young person in seconds! 



Dale


----------



## still learning (Feb 5, 2008)

Hello,  Self-Defense does not mean someone defend themselves with NON-violent moves.

Self-defense means using any means to survive any conflict.  Soldiers in wars defend their base camp...means destory the enemy with what ever they have at hand....rockets,bombs,Jets,cannons,bullets,...etc.  self-defense.

Kenpo and any martial arts...is about surviving most confrontations...many times meaning OFFENCE TACTICS! ..to defend oneself!

The best self-defense it VERBAL....!    ...or a poke in the eye?

Aloha,


----------



## Sanchin-J (Feb 7, 2008)

Just to clarify for Kenpotex, 
I'm not an instructor, just a student in my chosen art. But my goals to one day instruct hinge upon having a proper mindset and personal definitions in place, which is why this conversation originally started hehe. 

Thanks for the constructives however, there has been a good amount of diversity in this conversation and its very educating and somewhat entertaining to actually read through responses and try to step into the shoes of the poster.


----------



## Patrick61 (Feb 10, 2008)

We are all responsible for the level of force we use to respond to an assault or attack of any kind, regardless of our martial arts prowess. We can all be held accountable IAW the law. Fighting should be a last resort. If, however, there is a need to protect, then there is a use of force continium that must be exercised in my opinion. This of course requires that the person defending has the knowledge and skills to apply the required level of force.

As far as "overkill" in the Kenpo arts, it is really "overload" and insuring that the assialant is down and stays down. Anyone who is attacking someone with the intent to do physical harm deserves whatever they get in my opinion. Although the folks practicing are practicing on compliant partners and demonstrating some lethal techniques, this doesn't mean the same person will deliver lethal techniques in the street. The situation dictates what needs to be done and we have to hope that our spirits are compassionate in those instances where we can stop once the agressive force has been neutralized. In those siuations where the force is lethal in intention, there is no time to be nice.

In Kajukenbo, we learn to finish the fight. 

Respectfully,

Sifu Pat




Sanchin-J said:


> First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.
> 
> Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.
> 
> ...


----------

