# Opinions sought



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 2, 2011)

Very recently I was in an online discussion with another martial artist.  He relayed the following story;



> I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless  looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint  lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of  my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground.  I  was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a  sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped.
> 
> I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He  wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique  worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have  broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking  anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that  joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably  for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there  hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever.


My follow up comments were;



> I want to make sure I understand you completely here.  In a situation  where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure  you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't  want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold?
> 
> That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his  attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?
> 
> I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head,  while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e.  individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it  was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in  the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?


He followed with;



> I could have accomplished the same result without injuring his wrist


My reply was;



> Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick  him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two  possible scenarios;
> 
> 
> He was still violently trying  to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ  lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions.  (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly  while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I  doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
> ...


To my question in the above quote (#1 or #2) he replied "neither".

So...my comment;



> Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is  on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such  force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death.  I think you'll  find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to  justify this amount of force being used.  One does not just 'kick em in  the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.
> 
> In order to justify the use of deadly force the attacker needs to have  the ability to cause you great bodily harm and/or death and you need to  be in fear of your life.  The actual terminology will differ from state  to state, but that is the gist of what is required.
> 
> So, when this man grabbed your elbow, and you described it as 'in a threatening manner', were you in fear of your life?


My conclusion statement;



> I think acting in a manner such as this person describes i.e. not injuring  someone so that they don't get arthritis and dislike you when the  weather gets cold is dangerous.  During a physical altercation, one  cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.  They need to be clear  as to the legal requirements of the situation and then proceed with the  appropriate amount of force necessary to stop the threat.  The amount of  'force' may entail;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He never did respond to if he was in fear of his life or how the elbow grab was 'threatening' to him.  He never went into further detail as to what the man was doing (if anything) when he went to the ground or what prompted him to attempt to kick him in the head while on the ground.  

I'd like to get input from those that frequent this section to see what you think.  Thank you.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 2, 2011)

From your last paragraph, you asked what I would have -- and he didn't answer.  

I'm not sure what "grabbing an elbow in a threatening manner" consists of, but an unwanted touching is an assault.  From the accounts as presented, there's not even evidence to support an attempted robbery.  He might have been about to ask for money; he might have been about to point out that he just saw a guy place a skimmer on that ATM, or let your friend know that he missed his pocket putting his wallet away...  (I know, I'm stretching, but that's what an attorney would present as the situation.)

OK; your guy had a large sum of cash in hand.  Let's grant that he was defending himself from what he perceived to be an attempted robbery.  He proceeds to use a joint control and strike to the throat.  (Lethal force is arguably already used...)  The suspect falls down, and he's about to round kick him when someone intervenes.  The round kick was already questionably.  The initial lock & strike had pretty clearly eliminated the suspect's ability to act.

But your question, as I read it, seems to be more about the potential joint injury.  It's all well and good to try to avoid doing harm; I know of one system which focuses doing little or no harm to attackers, while still successfully defending yourself.  (The Bando Monk, for those interested.)  It takes a great deal of discipline and emotional control.

I'm simple-minded.  You try to hurt me, I hurt you.  And I'm not all that sympathetic to a person who's tried to hurt me and their problems later in life as a result.  I'm not saying that excessive force is justified -- but when force is justified, you have to use enough force to be sure that the threat is over.  That may be a joint lock and pain -- or a .40 round to center mass, which stands a reasonable chance of killing you.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 2, 2011)

Honestly his story sounds a bit fishy to begin with.  One of the hallmarks of someone lying is lots of detail about things that aren't relevant to the story, but details that are relevant to the story are sparse.  Read his original post and you'll see this.  So any follow up he has of questions from you are going to be either sparse or fabricated.  I wouldn't worry about it.  Sounds like another keyboard warrior


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2011)

There is always one more person involved in the fight than you first expect. Don't pound in nails with a sledge hammer. You may yet need that strength to cover out of the situation. Creating grudges is bad cover.
Sean


----------



## Kacey (Jun 2, 2011)

I, also, find the level of detail in this story somewhat fishy - especially the presence of a girlfriend whose intervention stopped the supposed attack; most muggers don't bring their SO's along for the mugging, unless the SO is an assistant.  

However, to address the original question:  if someone attacks me, no, I'm not going to worry about potential arthritis 10 years down the road.

That said, if, as described, the attacker (if he truly was an attacker...) was no longer a threat, and I am concerned about the emotional state of a person who thinks that it is appropriate to kick someone in the head who is already on the ground, nursing a possible broken wrist.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 2, 2011)

Kacey said:


> ...I am concerned about the emotional state of a person who thinks that it is appropriate to kick someone in the head who is already on the ground, nursing a possible broken wrist.


I would do just that, but don't worry, I'll be fine.(twitch twitch)


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I'm simple-minded.  You try to hurt me, I hurt you.  And I'm not all that sympathetic to a person who's tried to hurt me and their problems later in life as a result.



Maybe one day you will evolve to the level of the Bando Monk (you are a Bando practitioner right?) and you will care about such things.


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Honestly his story sounds a bit fishy to begin with.  One of the hallmarks of someone lying is lots of detail about things that aren't relevant to the story, but details that are relevant to the story are sparse.



Which details aren't relevant and which relevant details are not included that you would like to see?


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> I'm not sure what "grabbing an elbow in a threatening manner" consists of, but an unwanted touching is an assault.  From the accounts as presented, there's not even evidence to support an attempted robbery.  He might have been about to ask for money; he might have been about to point out that he just saw a guy place a skimmer on that ATM, or let your friend know that he missed his pocket putting his wallet away...  (I know, I'm stretching, but that's what an attorney would present as the situation.)



Which attorney would present it in that fashion, the prosecutor? Certainly not a defense attorney. 




jks9199 said:


> OK; your guy had a large sum of cash in hand.  Let's grant that he was defending himself from what he perceived to be an attempted robbery.  He proceeds to use a joint control and strike to the throat.  (Lethal force is arguably already used...)  The suspect falls down, and he's about to round kick him when someone intervenes.  The round kick was already questionably.  The initial lock & strike had pretty clearly eliminated the suspect's ability to act.



I had another attorney read this a criminal defense attorney in the office next to mine and this was his perspective, which no doubt is different from an LEO perspective. He said that the self defense arose out of the assault and the perception of "threatening", as well as the attempted robbery. He said that lethal force was not used, even if the roundhouse was thrown. He said that lethal or inappropriate force might be argued if roundhouse kicks were kept being thrown after the robber/assaulter was knocked unconscious, but as long as there was the perception of a physical threat, then the force was appropriate and there would not be a prosecution. The fact that the roundhouse kick was not thrown, ends any "intent" issues because intent only comes into play if the kick was actually thrown. So any discussion about the "intent" to thrown the roundhouse is irrelevant for purposes of arrest and/or prosecution. He also emphasized that the standard for prosecuting is beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard. He said that this situation is a no brainer, no arrest and if for whatever there was an arrest, then no prosecution. 

My criminal defense attorney friend said that jurors are very sympathetic to self defense scenarios. He cited to a recent local case here in which a farmer was getting his crops stolen on a regular basis by thieves. So the farmer, who lived on his farm with his family, went out to his field at night and waited for the thieves with a machete, and when they came, he cut out in the femoral artery and that person died. He was arrested, but not prosecuted because there was evidence of a weapon used in the thefts (a knife to cut the crops) and that the farmer felt "threatened" by the robbers, who he was laying in wait for in the middle of the night. 

Of course, if the story was made up, then you wouldn't get prosecuted for that either.

That's three people who said the above situation is a no arrest, no prosecution situation, a police officer, a prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney.


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Very recently I was in an online discussion with another martial artist. He relayed the following story;
> 
> My follow up comments were;
> 
> ...


 
I'll start with his comments, and work my way down.  Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head.  A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick.  Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.  

As far as what his teacher said...no, sorry,what happens to the guy who's trying to physically cause me or a loved one, bodily harm, isn't a concern of mine.  Now, let me clairify, as this can sound like I'm contradicting what I said above.  If all the situation warrants, is a joint lock, then fine.  But if in the process the guys wrist breaks, gets sprained or 10yrs down the road, gets arthritis, then so be it.  As long as my use of force is justified, then as I said, I'm not concerned with the effects of what happens.  Perhaps the bad guy should've thought more about a potential outcome, before he tries to rob someone. 

Of course, if its possible to get the hell out of the area, without having to fight, then great.   IMO, that should always be attempted.  But, as we all know, or should know, running may not always be an available option.


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> Maybe one day you will evolve to the level of the Bando Monk (you are a Bando practitioner right?) and you will care about such things.


 
Ummmm....what?  Sorry, I agree with JKS.  Everyone controls their own actions.  Thus, if you choose to attack someone, you, as a badguy, should understand that perhaps the person you choose to rob, wont be a pushover.  

BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'll start with his comments, and work my way down.  Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head.  A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick.  Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.



Some of the conversation is located here http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85212&page=3 beginning with post #41.  The rest is in another thread, perhaps the Kong Soo Do thread?  I'd have to look.

Apparently, according to a comment he made later, the 'attack' didn't happen from behind.  Apparently the man walked up to his side and initiated conversation with him i.e. 'give me some money' or something to that effect.  So if the defender now knows the 'attacker' is standing there to his side, how is it that it then allowed his elbow to be grabbed?  Why didn't he step back, move away or leave or at least assume some type of defensive posture?  Why couldn't he move his elbow?  Why didn't he try to block the grab?  

He claims that he talked with a police officer and two attorneys.  Maybe he did, I don't know.  But I would suspect the conversation as an attempt to CYA.  Kicking the head is deadly force no matter how you slice it.  Doesn't mean it wasn't justified, but the way the story is relayed, it doesn't appear that it was.  

And as far as the part about worrying that the attacker will get arthritis 10 years from now and think about you negatively when the weather gets cold...I agree with what others have stated, not a concern.


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Some of the conversation is located here http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85212&page=3 beginning with post #41. The rest is in another thread, perhaps the Kong Soo Do thread? I'd have to look.
> 
> Apparently, according to a comment he made later, the 'attack' didn't happen from behind. Apparently the man walked up to his side and initiated conversation with him i.e. 'give me some money' or something to that effect. So if the defender now knows the 'attacker' is standing there to his side, how is it that it then allowed his elbow to be grabbed? Why didn't he step back, move away or leave or at least assume some type of defensive posture? Why couldn't he move his elbow? Why didn't he try to block the grab?
> 
> ...


 
I'll take a peek at the other thread.  So, going on what you said about the attack, well yeah, common sense, IMO, should dictate, that if someone you dont know, is walking up on you, that you'd back up, put your hands up, ie: non threatening, tell them to move, step back, whatever.  

Yeah, the head kicking stuff....going on only the situation that was described, IMHO, a headkick is overboard.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'll start with his comments, and work my way down.  Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head.  A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick.  Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.
> 
> As far as what his teacher said...no, sorry,what happens to the guy who's trying to physically cause me or a loved one, bodily harm, isn't a concern of mine.  Now, let me clairify, as this can sound like I'm contradicting what I said above.  If all the situation warrants, is a joint lock, then fine.  But if in the process the guys wrist breaks, gets sprained or 10yrs down the road, gets arthritis, then so be it.  As long as my use of force is justified, then as I said, I'm not concerned with the effects of what happens.  Perhaps the bad guy should've thought more about a potential outcome, before he tries to rob someone.
> 
> Of course, if its possible to get the hell out of the area, without having to fight, then great.   IMO, that should always be attempted.  But, as we all know, or should know, running may not always be an available option.


If I was attacked at the ATM, I would not stop hitting this guy until he was done. I don't know if the rest of his friends are near, and it gets harder if he is still a viable threat.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2011)

MJS said:


> Ummmm....what?  Sorry, I agree with JKS.  Everyone controls their own actions.  Thus, if you choose to attack someone, you, as a badguy, should understand that perhaps the person you choose to rob, wont be a pushover.
> 
> BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.


The desire to get paybacks, and eliminating a threat are two different things. Payback speaks to a victim mentality.
Sean


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

MJS said:


> BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.



So because they don't care about you, you shouldn't care about them? Is that pretty much your position?


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'll start with his comments, and work my way down.  Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head.  A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick.



There was no kick to the head, which I guess means you don't see anything wrong with the response in its entirety then, right? "he said he was going to kick the guy in the head" isn't the same as actually kicking that head. I have murderous thoughts about about the guy who cut me off on the freeway. Can I be charged and/or convicted of any crime if I don't act on my thoughts?


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

Kong Soo Do said:


> He claims that he talked with a police officer and two attorneys.  Maybe he did, I don't know.



In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the evidence presented must be taken as true. All LEO know that. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> But I would suspect the conversation as an attempt to CYA.



CYA for what? The incident happened 25 years ago. There is no danger or threat of prosecution and no reason for CYA. 




Kong Soo Do said:


> Kicking the head is deadly force no matter how you slice it.  Doesn't mean it wasn't justified, but the way the story is relayed, it doesn't appear that it was.



At least one police officer, one prosecutor and one criminal defense attorney disagree with you, for a variety of reasons. Again, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard. LEO arrest people all the time for what they think are crimes; that doesn't mean the person arrested will be prosecuted, much less convicted.


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

*Here is a story that came out in today's paper.  I stated earlier that Prosecutors don't like to press charges against those who are defending themselves. Here is an example. 
*


*****

*No charges will be filed in Memorial Day fight death*

 					By Gregg K. Kakesako 					  
 					 				 									 								 								 				 				 								POSTED: 08:52 a.m. HST, Jun 07, 2011 				 								 								 			





The Prosecutors Office has decided not to press  charges against a 28-year-old man in connection with a fight on Memorial  Day at Heeia Kea Pier which ended in the death of a 26-year-old Kaneohe  man.


 																																 							  The Medical Examiners  office identified the victim as Nelden Torres. He died Monday at a  hospital where he was taken in critical condition after the fight on May  30.
 																																 							  An autopsy will be conducted on Torres today to determine the cause of his death.
 																																 							  Police had responded to a fight 6 p.m. May 30 and found a man unconscious and with head injuries near the boat launch area.


 																																 							  A 28-year-old man was  arrested Thursday on suspicion of first-degree assault following a  police CrimeStoppers request on Wednesday seeking witnesses and  information about the fight.


 																																 							  However, the  prosecutors office decided not to press charges since witnesses told  police that Torres sought out the suspect at the Kaneohe pier. The  suspect apparently was acting in self-defense, a spokesman for the  Honolulu prosecutor said.


 																																 							  The victim apparently threw the first punch and was injured when he fell and hit his head on the asphalt, the spokesman said.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the evidence presented must be taken as true.


 
Okay, I agree with you on this 100%.  I will go with what you've stated.  Appreciate the correction.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> If I was attacked at the ATM, I would not stop hitting this guy until he was done. I don't know if the rest of his friends are near, and it gets harder if he is still a viable threat.
> Sean


 
Agreed, and I hope my post didn't suggest otherwise.   My point was simply....assess the situation and act accordingly.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> The desire to get paybacks, and eliminating a threat are two different things. Payback speaks to a victim mentality.
> Sean


 
I know.  What made you think otherwise?  My point was simply...if a badguy chooses to try to rob someone, they should not be shocked if the victim fights back and causes serious harm to the badguy.  I wasn't talking about payback....not sure where that came from.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

puunui said:


> So because they don't care about you, you shouldn't care about them? Is that pretty much your position?


 
Yes, thats right. A little about myself....I'm a good guy.  I work hard, and share many good things with my wife. I dont look for trouble, I stay out of potential problem areas/places, and away from problem people. In a nutshell, I mind my own business. 

That being said, if you choose to break into my house at 2am, while my wife and I are sleeping, in order to steal something so you can sell it for a quick drug fix, then sorry, whatever happens to you, happens to you...plain and simple. Will I feel bad if my dog bites you? Nope. Will I feel bad if you take a spill down the stairs? Nope. 

A while back, there was a pretty nasty home invasion, in Cheshire, CT. After all was said and done, the husband was badly beaten but survived, his wife was raped and strangled, one of his daughters sexually assaulted,, both of them tied to their beds, and the house lit on fire. 

So, ask me again....do I care about the badguys? NO!!!! Sorry, I dont want to be another statistic, and I'll do everything in my power, if it takes my last breath, to ensure it!

BTW, the husband is the only survivor.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

puunui said:


> There was no kick to the head, which I guess means you don't see anything wrong with the response in its entirety then, right? "he said he was going to kick the guy in the head" isn't the same as actually kicking that head. I have murderous thoughts about about the guy who cut me off on the freeway. Can I be charged and/or convicted of any crime if I don't act on my thoughts?


 
No different than after I knock the guy down, and he's no longer a threat, I take one last kick and use his ribs as a football.  The situation doesnt warrant it, dont do it.  He said he was going to kick the guy in the head...and only stopped because someone got in his way.  That tells me that if that person wasn't in his way, he'd have kicked the guy, and that, IMO, would've been excessive.


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2011)

In a nutshell puuni....I'll go back to what I always say...assess the situation.  Guy grabs your arm and you can apply a lock, fine.  If the guy doesnt learn his lesson and now pulls a knife, you up your response.  Its the simple use of force ladder.  

A few months ago, I had a guy come up and ask me for money...as I was getting my bag out of my vehicle to go to class...of all places. LOL.  I was watching him closely, made sure he didn't get too close to me, and was firm enough, that it caused him to leave.  For me to KO the guy wouldnt be cool, if he was simply asking me for cash, not being aggressive, no weapons, etc.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 9, 2011)

MJS said:


> I know.  What made you think otherwise?  My point was simply...if a badguy chooses to try to rob someone, they should not be shocked if the victim fights back and causes serious harm to the badguy.  I wasn't talking about payback....not sure where that came from.


I was saying I think I saw Puuni's point if that's what it was. LOL


----------



## puunui (Jun 10, 2011)

MJS said:


> A while back, there was a pretty nasty home invasion, in Cheshire, CT. After all was said and done, the husband was badly beaten but survived, his wife was raped and strangled, one of his daughters sexually assaulted,, both of them tied to their beds, and the house lit on fire. So, ask me again....do I care about the badguys? NO!!!! Sorry, I dont want to be another statistic, and I'll do everything in my power, if it takes my last breath, to ensure it! BTW, the husband is the only survivor.



So that is your justification, what happened to someone else? But why do you care about the husband's situation? Do you think he cares about you, especially after what happened to his family?


----------



## puunui (Jun 10, 2011)

MJS said:


> No different than after I knock the guy down, and he's no longer a threat, I take one last kick and use his ribs as a football.  The situation doesnt warrant it, dont do it.  He said he was going to kick the guy in the head...and only stopped because someone got in his way.  That tells me that if that person wasn't in his way, he'd have kicked the guy, and that, IMO, would've been excessive.



But, there was no kick, remember? You willing to condemn and convict someone for the intent to do something with no follow through? Again, if I think murderous thoughts about someone who cuts me off on the freeway, can you condemn or convict me of a crime if I don't act on my murderous thoughts? Doesn't freedom of speech blend with freedom of thought?


----------



## puunui (Jun 10, 2011)

MJS said:


> A few months ago, I had a guy come up and ask me for money...as I was getting my bag out of my vehicle to go to class...of all places. LOL.  I was watching him closely, made sure he didn't get too close to me, and was firm enough, that it caused him to leave.  For me to KO the guy wouldnt be cool, if he was simply asking me for cash, not being aggressive, no weapons, etc.




I've had people ask me for money as well. Sometimes I give them money, sometimes not, depending.


----------



## MJS (Jun 10, 2011)

puunui said:


> So that is your justification, what happened to someone else? But why do you care about the husband's situation? Do you think he cares about you, especially after what happened to his family?


 
Umm...can you read dude?  WTF are you talking about?  Where did I say I didn't care about the husband?  I never said that!  I think YOU need to reread and stop twisting my words!  I said that if someone broke into a house, such as in Cheshire, those people who broke in, dont give a **** about the people inside, thus the homeowners, if they were capable of fighting back, shouldn't give a **** about the people breaking in!  I care about the husband, because this was a guy who was a doctor, a good man with a good family, who was brutally killed...thats why!!!!!!  People mind their own business, and 2 **** bags break in...screw the badguys!  



puunui said:


> But, there was no kick, remember? You willing to condemn and convict someone for the intent to do something with no follow through? Again, if I think murderous thoughts about someone who cuts me off on the freeway, can you condemn or convict me of a crime if I don't act on my murderous thoughts? Doesn't freedom of speech blend with freedom of thought?


 
Umm...better put your glasses on dude, cuz you're misreading again.  Again..I said that in the situation the OP listed, IMHO, I did not feel a head kick was justified in that situation.  Were it another situation, sure, that head kick may be justified.  Once again, as I said, each and every situation needs to be assessed, and a response planned out.  Where did I condemn him?????  Sure, there've been times, when I've thought of doing more than what was justified, but I didn't.  



puunui said:


> I've had people ask me for money as well. Sometimes I give them money, sometimes not, depending.


 
A few years ago, I was in NYC with my wife, sister and brother in law.  We were inside a store, taking a break in the foodcourt, and I saw a homeless woman digging thru the trash.  Disgusted at what I was seeing, I stood up, and was going to approach the woman, and offer to buy her something to eat.  However, before I could, she grabbed a container containing a half eaten sandwich, a half drank cup of soda, and ran off.  

No, I dont just hand out cash to people, but I'd have no issues buying something for them.  Better that than have them eating some nasty **** from the trash.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jul 30, 2011)

I was re-reading through the thread and putting it in context with other conversations I've had with this individual, or that I've read in his posts.  It suddenly hit me how contradictory (or hypocritical) this individual has become in his posts. For example, from the first quote in the opening post;



> I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have broke that guy's wrist. *I got a long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives.* He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever.



Okay, that's fine.  I don't agree with it of course and have stated so numerous times.  But to each his own.  But then this was sent to me from someone on the board, a quote from here on MT;



> I will give you an example which made it crystal clear for me. I was studying with GM JI Han Jae in Daly City when he first moved to the United States. In fact, I gave up an opportunity to attend Harvard Law School just so I could train with him. I tried to learn as much as I could. A few months before I was going to move back to Hawaii, he took myself and the senior student aside and he did this pain thing to my left elbow and left wrist. He did not explain why he did that. The next day I could not lift my arm up. I had to literally hold my left arm up using my right hand. My left wrist and elbow was sore for a year afterwards. During that whole time, I felt angry about it. But I never said anything and continued to attend class right up to the time I left to return home. I never said anything to GM Ji about it and tried as best I could to suck it up and not show pain. It was very painful because my left arm is my teaching arm and every time someone did a technique to my wrist or elbow, it hurt like hell. I kept wondering why he did that. Then about a year later, almost exactly one year, the pain went away. Since then people can do their techniques as hard as possible, and it doesn't hurt at all. My wrist and elbow is now painless and I can take anyone's best technique with ZERO pain. You pretty much have to break my wrist or arm for me to feel it. He only did this to the two of us as far as I know, for the longest time.
> 
> I could have been a crybaby and complained to everyone what he did. I could have told everyone that I knew that GM Ji was a terrible teacher who hurt his students. I could have become bitter and resentful and waited for my opportunity to seek revenge. But I would have been wrong if I had done that. I realize now that he was giving me a gift, a gift that he did not give to everyone. It made me stronger, it made me a better martial artist. But I didn't know that at the time, and he not telling me what he was doing was a test of my self discipline and character. And I am glad that I never went down the dark side with that, which would have been easy let me tell you. It hurt for a year. I couldn't use my left arm for one year without pain. After one year I returned to see GM Ji and told him that I finally understood what he had done for me and how much I appreciated his gift. He just smiled, and I can say that it was a real turning point because I saw him and all my teachers and seniors really, in a different light.



Now I don't suppose I'd agree with giving up Harvard Law to train in Hapkido, but again, to each his own I suppose.  But basically, he had his arm damaged from this instructor and then tries to put a spin on it by saying it was a 'gift' when it was negligence. But yet you're not suppose to injure an attacker because he will feel negative towards you when a cold front comes through.

This is what happens when you have a bad instructor but you're so sucked into the whole thing and dependent upon him for rank that you justify incompetence, negligence and a lack of integrity.  That's my take on it.


----------



## Buka (Jul 30, 2011)

Probably best not to argue with fools.


----------



## Lee Mainprize (Aug 2, 2011)

Agreed, if your using your skills for its real intended purpose your not thinking about your actions - your thinking about dealing with the threat!   

I think once your safe its applying reasonable force - when your in the moment you should not be thinking of holding back unless your very confidence the attacker is way out of his depth!


----------

