# attacking with kenpo



## jbclinic (Feb 4, 2006)

here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets here them!


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 4, 2006)

well, from a strict kenpo technique angle, the Tracy system has a small number of directly offense techniques such as Crossing the Guard in Orange Belt, Returning Viper and Returning Thunder in Blue Belt, Slicing Knee in Third Brown, and Turning the Key in Green.  

I am not sure you need to use them to attack.  If you launch the attack, we can probably assume you are the first to make a move and you can direct a simple attack to a vulnerable target.  However, if the opponent reacts successfully to your attack, this may be where your techniques come into play.  Your initial attack may become more of a set-up for a successful technique later.


----------



## Dark Kenpo Lord (Feb 4, 2006)

jbclinic said:
			
		

> here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets here them!


 
Is this some sort of trick question or you really don't know the answer?

DarK LorD


----------



## bujuts (Feb 4, 2006)

jbclinic said:
			
		

> here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets here them!



Bloody good question.  I personally feel kenpo is an attacking system to begin with.  I say that in terms of the overall objective of my kenpo in a confrontation - to protect my peace.  One's peace is of course how they define it - yourself, your loved ones, the innocent, a friend, your country, etc.  Not for sport, not for title, not for recognition or ego, but simply the human right to exist and protect that which is mine.  From this platform, a human's ethical, moral, and spiritual parameters should establish when one should engage.

For me, kenpo is necessary when all diplomacy has failed, when all attempts to avoid the situation have failed, when I have taken all the legal precautions necessary, when the assailant's actions / intent meet my _pretermined criteria _of when to engage.  _Self defense_ is no longer part of my equation once that threshold has been crossed.  We must resort to physical violence and take out that which threatens our peace.  Action to action, the attacker must become the attacked.

So, we learn kenpo as a defense system, yes.  But I see _self defense_ more as a way of life.  Avoiding trouble, using kindness, environmental awareness, walk a quiet path, and health at all levels - these are in my mind self defense, because in their own way they work to keep away the bad, human or otherwise.  Kenpo is for when these all fail, it is the 12 gauge under my bed when the door to my house of peace has been kicked in.

Kenpo is brutal.  It is designed to eliminate the threat of other humans to one's peace by whatever means necessary - which may mean simply avoidance, it may mean submitting, it may mean hurting, it may mean maimiing, and it may mean killing.

Back to your question, then.  Can it be an attacking system?  In my opinion, it is.  It is for those rare times when we must take action agressively and dominate our space.  Techniques are by necessity taught against certain attacks, certain situations, and with specific conditions.  But they are a learning platform, a forum on which we learn all the nuances of human combatives.  But as we integrate motions and principles contained within them, the walls that segregate them begin to disappear.  We develop free flowing action, and this action is *attacking*, dominating, anhialating, and most importantly justified based on the moral and ethical parameters we establish within our selves to warrant such violence.

I keep a .357 near my pillow, and I will be a happy man if I go to the grave without ever having had to use it on another human in self offense.  The same is true for kenpo.

Im my book, I vote it _is _an attacking system.  I look forward to other inputs on this thread.

Great topic, thanks for the post.

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 4, 2006)

Of course, why wouldn't you? 
Sean


----------



## Bode (Feb 5, 2006)

Dark Kenpo Lord said:
			
		

> Is this some sort of trick question or you really don't know the answer?


Ok, that is just funny. I was really thinking the same thing. I guess it wasn't a trick though.


----------



## Doc (Feb 5, 2006)

If someone is standing in front of you and announces their intent to 'harm' you, and you kick them in their lower extremities, are you attacking or defending? In terms of your physical actions, what's the difference?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 5, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> If someone is standing in front of you and announces their intent to 'harm' you, and you kick them in their lower extremities, are you attacking or defending? In terms of your physical actions, what's the difference?


 
That's the way I feel about it. I was trained that if you percieve an an emmante threat you should react. "He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position." -SGM Ed Parker.  I was always taught that Kenpo was more aggressive than a lot of arts and was trained to be that way in terms of self defense. 

Assault is not necessarily someone hitting or swinging at you. Depending on your state (province, etc) the laws may differ so I would encourage you to find out. But in most cases an individual does not have to make contact with your person to be considered Assault. That's actually considered Battery when they make contact with your person. People like Doc, that have law enforcement backgrounds, could probably elaborate further.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 5, 2006)

jbclinic said:
			
		

> here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets *hear* them!


 
a punch is a punch is a...aww, nevermind. At this point, what really is the point?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 6, 2006)

Of course. There are techniques where you take the offensive before the attacker ever makes a move. Three Hands of China and Passing Warrior from our system come to mind.

In a general sense, there's no such thing as self defense. If attacked and all you do is defend yourself, you're most like going to lose. In an attack situation, you should be thinking offense, take control of the situation and end it on your terms. As a result, you could consider everything you do as an attack but one provoked by someone else.


----------



## Seig (Feb 7, 2006)

No.
If I attack, I am not attacking with Kenpo, I am attacking with anger or malice. If I defend myself, I am using Kenpo.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> No.
> If I attack, I am not attacking with Kenpo, I am attacking with anger or malice. If I defend myself, I am using Kenpo.


I agree you should not be in attack mode; however, the duality of your motion, does make it like a chess game. Maybe attack isn't the word but you must be aggressive and try to stay ahead. If your black, play like its opposite day.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

jbclinic said:
			
		

> here's a thought, can you attack with kenpo techniques? opions and solutions, lets here them!


 
Attacking meaning before your opponent throws anything or begins to make an aggressive move?  Not too sure i'd want to look like the aggressor in that situation.  Now, as he beings to move, sure concepts, ideas, etc. such as pinning and checking or an actual technique once the strike is thrown...yes, I can see that happening.

Mike


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I agree you should not be in attack mode; however, the duality of your motion, does make it like a chess game. Maybe attack isn't the word but you must be aggressive and try to stay ahead. If your black, play like its opposite day.
> Sean



I agree that attack is not the best word to use.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Attacking meaning before your opponent throws anything or begins to make an aggressive move? Not too sure i'd want to look like the aggressor in that situation. Now, as he beings to move, sure concepts, ideas, etc. such as pinning and checking or an actual technique once the strike is thrown...yes, I can see that happening.
> 
> Mike



How much of an agressive move do you think there needs to be before you respond? I really think this is a gray area. One, I don't see why I would wait until somebody takes a swing at me before I respond, and two, if I KNOW it's going to happen and I end it before it starts, am I now seen as the aggressor in the situation? The solution is somewhere in the middle but where?


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> How much of an agressive move do you think there needs to be before you respond? I really think this is a gray area.


 
If the person in front of you is simply yelling and acting like a complete fool, IMHO, he has not yet physically assaulted you. Saying that he is going to kill you, knock your head off, etc., are simply words. He has not yet attempted or completed the act. We can also look at your next paragraph, which fits in nicely with the first one.



> One, I don't see why I would wait until somebody takes a swing at me before I respond,


 
Once he begins to draw back to strike, that is IMO the time to move. I agree, why wait until the punch is half way to your face before you begin a counter. My appologies if I was not clear about that in my last post. This is where the pre-emptive strike comes in. 




> and two, if I KNOW it's going to happen and I end it before it starts, am I now seen as the aggressor in the situation? The solution is somewhere in the middle but where?


 
No, you're not being seen as the aggessor. By giving the impression that you don't want to fight, ie: verbal de-escalation, hands up in a non-threatening posture, but still up to aid in the pre-emptive, etc. will certainly make you look like you do not want to fight. The act of him drawing back to hit you is the aggression on his part.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> If the person in front of you is simply yelling and acting like a complete fool, IMHO, he has not yet physically assaulted you. Saying that he is going to kill you, knock your head off, etc., are simply words. He has not yet attempted or completed the act. We can also look at your next paragraph, which fits in nicely with the first one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing there to disagree with. Just because he's being stupid is no reason to clean his clock.

Let's change the scenario to a dark street with nobody else around and you're approached by somebody who wants your wallet. Is the demand enough provocation, without him making a threatening move?


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Nothing there to disagree with. Just because he's being stupid is no reason to clean his clock.


 
Agreed. 



> Let's change the scenario to a dark street with nobody else around and you're approached by somebody who wants your wallet. Is the demand enough provocation, without him making a threatening move?


 
I'd have to say it's all going to depend on the person in that situation.  Simply asking for the wallet is IMO, no different than the above situation where the person is yelling at you.  Now, if a weapon is present, he makes an aggressive move towards me or appears to be reaching for something...well, I'm certainly not going to stand around and wait to see what it is.  

And of course, we can look at the other end as well.  People say your wallet, car and money can be replaced, your life can't.  Very true, but there is nothing to say that you still won't lose your life after you give up what they want.  So, do we give it up and hope that they leave or do we fight back?


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

For those that want to go that way, let's be clear. An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat. A person standing across the street threatening to knock your head off is exercising free speech and personal 'puffery.' A person within striking range who makes the same threat, has 'assaulted' you. A person who swings and makes contact has committed a 'battery' upon your person. An assault does not require contact, and a 'battery' is a completed 'assault.'


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> For those that want to go that way, let's be clear. An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat. A person standing across the street threatening to knock your head off is exercising free speech and personal 'puffery.' A person within striking range who makes the same threat, has 'assaulted' you. A person who swings and makes contact has committed a 'battery' upon your person. An assault does not require contact, and a 'battery' is a completed 'assault.'


And if you are assaulted, I feel its OK to hit him or do whatever you need to do to nullify the threat and or take care of pressing concerns. Mr. Parker always said the longer you wait, the harder the situation becomes to deal with. Waiting to be a victim of battery may not be the wisest course of action once threatened.
Sean


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> For those that want to go that way, let's be clear. An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat. A person standing across the street threatening to knock your head off is exercising free speech and personal 'puffery.' A person within striking range who makes the same threat, has 'assaulted' you. A person who swings and makes contact has committed a 'battery' upon your person. An assault does not require contact, and a 'battery' is a completed 'assault.'


 
I appreciate that clarification.  I guess I have actually been assaulted numerous times, but it never resulted in battery.  It's amazing how many assaults you can actually just walk away from.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> And if you are assaulted, I feel its OK to hit him or do whatever you need to do to nullify the threat and or take care of pressing concerns. Mr. Parker always said the longer you wait, the harder the situation becomes to deal with. Waiting to be a victim of battery may not be the wisest course of action once threatened.
> Sean


 
So, if I'm reading this correctly, if the person is assaulting in the "verbal"sense, not yet making any move to physically hitting you, you're going to take a swing towards him?

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> So, if I'm reading this correctly, if the person is assaulting in the "verbal"sense, not yet making any move to physically hitting you, you're going to take a swing towards him?
> 
> Mike


I would act before battery; yes. That may not mean swinging but it just might.
Sean


----------



## Rick Wade (Feb 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Nothing there to disagree with. Just because he's being stupid is no reason to clean his clock.


 
No but it never hurts to dust the clock every now and then.

V/R

Rick


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I would act before battery; yes. That may not mean swinging but it just might.
> Sean


 
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I just don't see myself taking a shot at someone because he called me an ******* or told me that they were going to kick my ***. If I did that every time someone "assaulted" me in the sense that we're talking about here, I'd have hit more people than I can count! Now, again, if the person is drawing back, reaching towards me, etc., well, thats different.

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess I just don't see myself taking a shot at someone because he called me an ******* or told me that they were going to kick my ***. If I did that every time someone "assaulted" me in the sense that we're talking about here, I'd have hit more people than I can count! Now, again, if the person is drawing back, reaching towards me, etc., well, thats different.
> 
> Mike


 
I guess if someone is really telling you how they are gonna kick your *** and acting like they are about to actually try, then i'd say you are clear for liftoff.

Of course the other side of the coin is that they may have friends around who are just waiting for you to "initiate" the fight so they can all join in.  And the guy may have a weapon that he is looking for an excuse to use.  

I had this very thing happen, where this scrawney punk was following me down the street telling me how he and his friends were gonna "crack on you".  I kept thinking that he must have a weapon but he never did pull it out if he did.  It made me reluctant to do anything except keep walking and keep an eye on him.  When he finally actually tried to start the fight, I looked up and saw 5 or 6 guys sprinting down the sidewalk ready to join in the fun.  Rather than give them a chance to surround me, I whipped out a few choice moves of "Nike-Do" and showed them that they couldn't touch me.


----------



## Zoran (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification. I guess I just don't see myself taking a shot at someone because he called me an ******* or told me that they were going to kick my ***. If I did that every time someone "assaulted" me in the sense that we're talking about here, I'd have hit more people than I can count! Now, again, if the person is drawing back, reaching towards me, etc., well, thats different.
> 
> Mike



MJS, you are over thinking this. If someone is verbally assaulting you within your space, you are in danger. Not because of the verbal, but because they are in your zone. I usually back off and warn the person to keep away from me. If they enter that zone again, well that's going to be a problem. Self defense becomes a problem when a person is so close to you that you can smell how bad their breath is.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

Rick Wade said:
			
		

> No but it never hurts to dust the clock every now and then.
> 
> V/R
> 
> Rick



lol!


----------



## jdinca (Feb 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> I guess if someone is really telling you how they are gonna kick your *** and acting like they are about to actually try, then i'd say you are clear for liftoff.
> 
> Of course the other side of the coin is that they may have friends around who are just waiting for you to "initiate" the fight so they can all join in. And the guy may have a weapon that he is looking for an excuse to use.
> 
> I had this very thing happen, where this scrawney punk was following me down the street telling me how he and his friends were gonna "crack on you". I kept thinking that he must have a weapon but he never did pull it out if he did. It made me reluctant to do anything except keep walking and keep an eye on him. When he finally actually tried to start the fight, I looked up and saw 5 or 6 guys sprinting down the sidewalk ready to join in the fun. Rather than give them a chance to surround me, I whipped out a few choice moves of "Nike-Do" and showed them that they couldn't touch me.



A wise choice! Reading the situation as quickly as possible is a major key to survival and avoidance.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> So, if I'm reading this correctly, if the person is assaulting in the "verbal"sense, not yet making any move to physically hitting you, you're going to take a swing towards him?
> 
> Mike


An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and *they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat.*


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> MJS, you are over thinking this. If someone is verbally assaulting you within your space, you are in danger. Not because of the verbal, but because they are in your zone. I usually back off and warn the person to keep away from me. If they enter that zone again, well that's going to be a problem. Self defense becomes a problem when a person is so close to you that you can smell how bad their breath is.


 



> An assault has occurred when someone makes a threat, and *they have the clear and present ability to complete that threat.*


 
Well, maybe I am over thinking this, and maybe we all are just looking at it differently. We're all going to have different views, etc. and that does not mean that one person is right and the other is wrong. I realize, as its been made abundantly clear, that the 'assault' has occurred when someone makes the threat. Certainly, if they're within arms reach, its a good idea to be ready in the event something happens, and i'm not disputing that. As far as I'm concerned, let them say whatever they want, the fact remains that they still have not touched me. If however, they make an attempt to take a swing, make an aggressive move, etc., I certainly would not just stand there. 

Again, everyone is going to have their own way of dealing with the situation presented to them. Whats going to matter the most, is making sure that you survive. If it means taking the person out, fine. If it means being able to verbally defuse the situation, and walk away without having anything thrown, thats fine too. 

Mike


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, maybe I am over thinking this, and maybe we all are just looking at it differently. We're all going to have different views, etc. and that does not mean that one person is right and the other is wrong. I realize, as its been made abundantly clear, that the 'assault' has occurred when someone makes the threat. Certainly, if they're within arms reach, its a good idea to be ready in the event something happens, and i'm not disputing that. As far as I'm concerned, let them say whatever they want, the fact remains that they still have not touched me. If however, they make an attempt to take a swing, make an aggressive move, etc., I certainly would not just stand there.
> 
> Again, everyone is going to have their own way of dealing with the situation presented to them. Whats going to matter the most, is making sure that you survive. If it means taking the person out, fine. If it means being able to verbally defuse the situation, and walk away without having anything thrown, thats fine too.
> 
> Mike


Just so you know, if a person is within arms reach of you and you wait to see them attack, you're already hit - no matter who they are.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Just so you know, if a person is within arms reach of you and you wait to see them attack, you're already hit - no matter who they are.


 
Thats the idea of the pre-emptive strike...to hit them as they begin to make their move, not wait until the punch is half way to your face.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thats the idea of the pre-emptive strike...to hit them as they begin to make their move, not wait until the punch is half way to your face.


You miss my point sir. IF you wait for them to begin to strike, it is too late.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> You miss my point sir. IF you wait for them to begin to strike, it is too late.


 
Well, let me ask you this sir:  What would you do if faced with that situation?  You've obviously been around the block a few more times and I'm sure you've seen quite a bit in your LEO career.  I'm sure you could provide some detailed explainations, to help me understand a bit better. 

Mike


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, maybe I am over thinking this, and maybe we all are just looking at it differently. We're all going to have different views, etc. and that does not mean that one person is right and the other is wrong. I realize, as its been made abundantly clear, that the 'assault' has occurred when someone makes the threat. Certainly, if they're within arms reach, its a good idea to be ready in the event something happens, and i'm not disputing that. As far as I'm concerned, let them say whatever they want, the fact remains that they still have not touched me. If however, they make an attempt to take a swing, make an aggressive move, etc., I certainly would not just stand there.
> 
> Again, everyone is going to have their own way of dealing with the situation presented to them. Whats going to matter the most, is making sure that you survive. If it means taking the person out, fine. If it means being able to verbally defuse the situation, and walk away without having anything thrown, thats fine too.
> 
> Mike


 
In my own experiences, I have always managed to keep the person outside actual striking range.  If he moves to close the gap, then he is launching a strike.  In doing so, I have (so far, knock on wood) been able to ultimately walk away from all encounters without anyone getting hurt.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Well, let me ask you this sir:  What would you do if faced with that situation?  You've obviously been around the block a few more times and I'm sure you've seen quite a bit in your LEO career.  I'm sure you could provide some detailed explainations, to help me understand a bit better.
> 
> Mike


When someone tells you they are going to do something to you, believe it. The law recognizes that you do not have to wait for them to try to complete the act, nor are you required to retreat your ground.

We detained a man who was very angry. When we determined he had committed no crime we told him we would let him go. He than anounced he was going to go home and get his gun and come back. We advised him he wasn't coming back. He said he was. I said "no you're not because you aren't leaving." He was arrested for the threat.

Believe the threat and act accordingly. Wait for the threat to be completed and ... Well let me put it another way you may have heard from another source. "He who hesitates meditates in a horizontal position." - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## Doc (Feb 7, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> In my own experiences, I have always managed to keep the person outside actual striking range.  If he moves to close the gap, then he is launching a strike.  In doing so, I have (so far, knock on wood) been able to ultimately walk away from all encounters without anyone getting hurt.


So you refuse to address the possibility someone could be close enough to hit you before they verbally announce the threat. Give it a thought, or not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> So you refuse to address the possibility someone could be close enough to hit you before they verbally announce the threat. Give it a thought, or not.


 
No, I am very aware of the possibility.  In this case he DID announce the threat but remained outside striking range but close enough that he could enter striking range if he chose to take action.  I kept walking, but kept him in my vision in case he tried to make good on his threat.  As he began to try to engage, that is when five or six of his friends showed up, and that is when I felt simply getting away was the most prudent thing to do.  While this was the most extreme situation, I have had other experiences as well.  Ultimately the antagonists did not engage, or attempted to engage ineffectually and the situation dissolved.  Was I in my legal rights in these cases to drop them?  Yes, I was and I appreciate your comments on that.  But I chose not to and ultimately I was none the worse for it.

I am not sure I understand your comment above.  Anybody walking past me could be close enough to strike me without verbally announcing it.  If they do not announce it, and do not make any body language to make me suspect they may try, then they are just another person passing by on the sidewalk.  I am not going to seek to engage with everyone who walks too close to me on the off chance that they may be trying to do me harm.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> When someone tells you they are going to do something to you, believe it. The law recognizes that you do not have to wait for them to try to complete the act, nor are you required to retreat your ground.


 
So just the simple act of saying what they're going to or want to do to you, is enough grounds to strike them?




> Believe the threat and act accordingly. Wait for the threat to be completed and ... Well let me put it another way you may have heard from another source. "He who hesitates meditates in a horizontal position." - Ed Parker Sr.


 
There have been a few instances in which the person threatened bodily harm, only to never follow through.  In many cases, his verbal threats, could simply be intimidation.  Should we assume this always to be the case? Not at all.  Having my hands up, slightly bladed stance, is providing me with a defense/offense if that need arises.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 7, 2006)

Would you hit someone whom threatened to kill your child that was standing next to you? This isn't a Chuck Noris movie.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Would you hit someone whom threatened to kill your child that was standing next to you? This isn't a Chuck Noris movie.
> Sean


 
Sean, let me ask you this.  If you were confronted and there was an avenue of escape, would you take it, while at the same time, trying to first, verbally defuse the situation, or would you, choose to take a swing at the guy even though you had the chance to leave without further confrontation?

As for your question though...if the person who made that comment made an aggressive move towards me, my child, or my wife, then yes, of course.  

Mike


----------



## Zoran (Feb 8, 2006)

The bottom line is that it's all about distance. I very much advise, *from a lot of experience*, not to allow anyone who is being agressive within a certain range. You may diffuse a situation but do it from a safe distance. Standing nose to nose with someone means that person who gets hit will be the person who doesn't move first. 

I know from a certain distance, I can pretty much hit anyone of any rank period (if I move first). This is not a boast, as I do not feel I am anyone special. This can be said for most well trained martial artists and some experienced street toughs. So I know what I am capable of, since I am no one special, that means others can be as capable or more. 

I fully expect those that disagree with me will never believe what I say and nothing I say will make a difference. You see someone like Doc, an LEO, advising not allowing someone within arms reach. He is not just speaking from his martial arts training here, but a different kind of experience.


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> There have been a few instances in which the person threatened bodily harm, only to never follow through. In many cases, his verbal threats, could simply be intimidation. Should we assume this always to be the case? Not at all. Having my hands up, slightly bladed stance, is providing me with a defense/offense if that need arises.


It is difficult, if not impossible, to discern the intent of other people.

I've always tried to take people at their word when they threaten me...whether I'm keeping distance, running away or ready to pounce...it doesn't always have to end up physical, but if it does I'd like to not get hurt.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Sean, let me ask you this. If you were confronted and there was an avenue of escape, would you take it, while at the same time, trying to first, verbally defuse the situation, or would you, choose to take a swing at the guy even though you had the chance to leave without further confrontation?
> 
> As for your question though...if the person who made that comment made an aggressive move towards me, my child, or my wife, then yes, of course.
> 
> Mike


 
I agree.  If there is an avenue of escape, take it.  Don't let someone into your space where they can attack you, and get out of there if possible.  If not possible, if the person has invaded your space and is verbally and/or physically threatening you, then it is time to fight even if he hasn't thrown the first punch yet.


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Sean, let me ask you this. If you were confronted and there was an avenue of escape, would you take it, while at the same time, trying to first, verbally defuse the situation, or would you, choose to take a swing at the guy even though you had the chance to leave without further confrontation?
> 
> As for your question though...if the person who made that comment made an aggressive move towards me, my child, or my wife, then yes, of course.
> 
> Mike



From reading this thread, the issue seems to be the individuals "line that has to be crossed" before action is initiated. What's interesting is that time wise, we're possibly talking about a split second. Not a lot of time if you're going to wait for them to initiate an agressive move.

I look at it this way, if the threat is against one of my children or a SO, then there will be no hesitation. Once I'm sure the attacker can no longer carry our his threat against them, we'll leave. But trying to get away and expecting those you're trying to protect to keep up, or risk the potential of being caught from behind wouldn't exactly be my first choice. 

If it's just me, then I would probably be more inclined to your point of view. It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

Ray said:
			
		

> It is difficult, if not impossible, to discern the intent of other people.


 
Difficult yes, impossible no.  All the more reason for the importance of reading body language.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

Zoran said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that it's all about distance. I very much advise, *from a lot of experience*, not to allow anyone who is being agressive within a certain range. You may diffuse a situation but do it from a safe distance. Standing nose to nose with someone means that person who gets hit will be the person who doesn't move first.
> 
> I know from a certain distance, I can pretty much hit anyone of any rank period (if I move first). This is not a boast, as I do not feel I am anyone special. This can be said for most well trained martial artists and some experienced street toughs. So I know what I am capable of, since I am no one special, that means others can be as capable or more.
> 
> I fully expect those that disagree with me will never believe what I say and nothing I say will make a difference. You see someone like Doc, an LEO, advising not allowing someone within arms reach. He is not just speaking from his martial arts training here, but a different kind of experience.


 
The further the person, the less threat they are.  Aside from pulling a gun and shooting you, neither you nor they can reach with punches or kicks.  Can they run towards you? Sure, and if thats the case, again, all the more reason to be aware and ready.  If you plan on launching an offense, they are going to need to be close enough to reach.  If the person is aggressively moving towards you, it would be safe to bet that you'd better be prepared to do something.  Having your hands up, gives you that barrier or zone around you.  Once they are getting past that, again its safe to assume that they will most likely do something and you need to react.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Sean, let me ask you this. If you were confronted and there was an avenue of escape, would you take it, while at the same time, trying to first, verbally defuse the situation, or would you, choose to take a swing at the guy even though you had the chance to leave without further confrontation?
> 
> As for your question though...if the person who made that comment made an aggressive move towards me, my child, or my wife, then yes, of course.
> 
> Mike


What is to escape from. Its not as if the person who threatened to kill you or your family will just shrug his shoulders and go away. Sure maybe if you are a tourist and are simply being berated for something your country did before you were born, or you can tell its not the type of threat you need to concern yourself with past the moment you walk out the door, but threats should be taken as rainchecks.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> From reading this thread, the issue seems to be the individuals "line that has to be crossed" before action is initiated. What's interesting is that time wise, we're possibly talking about a split second. Not a lot of time if you're going to wait for them to initiate an agressive move.
> 
> I look at it this way, if the threat is against one of my children or a SO, then there will be no hesitation. Once I'm sure the attacker can no longer carry our his threat against them, we'll leave. But trying to get away and expecting those you're trying to protect to keep up, or risk the potential of being caught from behind wouldn't exactly be my first choice.
> 
> If it's just me, then I would probably be more inclined to your point of view. It's all a matter of perspective.


 
You're right.  There may not even be a chance to verbally defuse this, due to what you said above..the distance can be closed quick.  By all means, if there is no time to talk, then yes, I agree that an appropriate physical response will be necessary.

What we all need to keep in mind, is that every situation will be different.  To go off of one persons thoughts, experiences, etc., is assuming that every single person will have the same thing happen to them.  And we all know what happens when we assume something.   I recall a road rage incident that happened to me, while I was with my family.  When both vehicles finally came to a stop, I found it interesting that the aggressor, the one with the biggest mouth, the one saying that he was going to kick our ***, never left the side of his car.  Instead, he was out of his car, standing between the car door.  For someone that was so hell bent on causing bodily harm to both my Father and I, he never once made an aggressive move.  When he realized that his 'threats' were not having the effect he was hoping for, he got back in his car, and drove away.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What is to escape from. Its not as if the person who threatened to kill you or your family will just shrug his shoulders and go away. Sure maybe if you are a tourist and are simply being berated for something your country did before you were born, or you can tell its not the type of threat you need to concern yourself with past the moment you walk out the door, but threats should be taken as rainchecks.
> Sean


 
Thanks for the reply, but you still didn't answer the question.  If you had the choice between leaving if you could, or staying to deal with the threat, what would you do?

Mike


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> You're right. There may not even be a chance to verbally defuse this, due to what you said above..the distance can be closed quick. By all means, if there is no time to talk, then yes, I agree that an appropriate physical response will be necessary.
> 
> What we all need to keep in mind, is that every situation will be different. To go off of one persons thoughts, experiences, etc., is assuming that every single person will have the same thing happen to them. And we all know what happens when we assume something. I recall a road rage incident that happened to me, while I was with my family. When both vehicles finally came to a stop, I found it interesting that the aggressor, the one with the biggest mouth, the one saying that he was going to kick our ***, never left the side of his car. Instead, he was out of his car, standing between the car door. For someone that was so hell bent on causing bodily harm to both my Father and I, he never once made an aggressive move. When he realized that his 'threats' were not having the effect he was hoping for, he got back in his car, and drove away.
> 
> Mike



Good points. Hey, wait a minute, did you just call me an ***?


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Good points.


 
Thank you. 



> Hey, wait a minute, did you just call me an ***?


 
Not at all.  Sorry if I gave that impression.  I was just stating that nobody should assume certain things will happen in a confrontation.  Just an over-all generalization.  Looking at certain posts, it seems to me anyway, that because they have had certain things happen, that everyone else in the same situation will have the same results.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply, but you still didn't answer the question. If you had the choice between leaving if you could, or staying to deal with the threat, what would you do?
> 
> Mike


I always do.
Sean


----------



## MJS (Feb 8, 2006)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I always do.
> Sean


 
Would you be so kind as to clarify this?:idunno:


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Would you be so kind as to clarify this?:idunno:


I look for ways to defuse the situation. I can ususaly lighten a potentialy serious situation. Jokes help.
Sean


----------



## Carol (Feb 8, 2006)

Please forgive me backstepping a little bit.  I have many weaknesses, but Doc touched upon one that I didn't know I had.  You all are a lot further along in your training than I am, I would love to hear your input.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> When someone tells you they are going to do something to you, believe it.


 
I don't know if I could hit someone if I didn't _feel_ threatened.  

Have any of you felt that way...or is it just me and my inexperience?  

Hitting someone is difficult for me to process.  I have never hit or been hit (class excluded).  I am a bit intuitive and analytical by nature...when I get a feeling that something is terribly wrong, I get away from that place.

If someone were to threaten to do something to me and I had some sense of danger, I think I could see myself hitting the person, or strongly considering it.    

It seems possible that someone could threaten me in a way that just doesn't register as a credible threat.  It would be much harder for me to hit someone if this was the case.

Have any of you felt this way or am I alone here?


----------



## jdinca (Feb 8, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. Sorry if I gave that impression. I was just stating that nobody should assume certain things will happen in a confrontation. Just an over-all generalization. Looking at certain posts, it seems to me anyway, that because they have had certain things happen, that everyone else in the same situation will have the same results.



Sorry, that was a joke. :wink2:


----------



## Doc (Feb 8, 2006)

lady_kaur said:
			
		

> Please forgive me backstepping a little bit.  I have many weaknesses, but Doc touched upon one that I didn't know I had.  You all are a lot further along in your training than I am, I would love to hear your input.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suggest the book: "The Gift Of Fear." by Gavin DeBecker.
I feel this might put some of these things in context for you and help you understand the seriousness of decisions you must make and the mindset you should have with regard to your own safety on a day-to-day basis.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 8, 2006)

In my neck of the woods we consider this a spiritule fitness issue. It helps to compile a list of things you would die for. If the situation isn't worth your life then walk away. A lack of spritual fitness could very well result in a faliure to protect your family, yourself, friends or any other principles you hold dear.
Sean


----------



## bujuts (Feb 12, 2006)

Seig said:
			
		

> No.
> If I attack, I am not attacking with Kenpo, I am attacking with anger or malice. If I defend myself, I am using Kenpo.



What brings a person to the mental and physical level wherein they must engage another human being is entirely their own choice, and you have made your own point clear.  The question comes up, though, when we must consider what we would engage for beyond protection of just ourselves.  

Children / loved ones? A friend? An innocent?  Your country?  What you are willing to engage for is none of my business - or anybody's - but your own.  Nevertheless, most humans have something or someone(s) beyond themselves who, when truly in risk of harm by another human, warrants attack, according to their belief system / personal code.

I'd be interested to hear others view on this.

Thanks,

Steven Brown
UKF


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 12, 2006)

I think there is an history of considering martial arts a purely defensive. Perhaps it comes from its integration into the general population. I ,however, believe there is a time for berzerker type stuff.
Sean


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 7, 2006)

kenpo is a state of mind.

when in doubt, throw an elbow.


----------

