# Toning Down The Techniques



## MJS (Mar 2, 2009)

In another thread, this thread from KT was mentioned. While reading a few of those posts, I started thinking about our Kenpo techniques. If we look at them, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye pokes, groin kicks, breaks, stomps, you name it, its probably in a technique. 

Doc commented that if someone has to do those things, then they haven't learned any martial arts skills.  Now, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with part of this, and hopefully Doc, or another SL4 student will chime in, for the specifics of the way things are done with those techs.

Now, I agree that we should not have to rely on those things to win.  if we can't figure out a few other ways to defend ourselves, what have we really learned?  Additionally, if thats all we know, then we'll probably find ourselves doing some overkill with alot of things that don't warrant that type of response.

On the other hand, there may be some cases, where we do need those extreme measures, so not doing them could be the difference between winning and losing.

Back to the techniques.  Should we change/modify what we do, to avoid the brutal aspect or just go with the tech. as written?  So, think Lone Kimono....a simple left hand lapel grab and the first move entails a rising strike to the elbow, in an effort to get a break or hyper extension.  Following that, is a strike down on that same arm and then an outward handsword to the neck.  

Thoughts?


----------



## exile (Mar 2, 2009)

MJS said:


> In another thread, this thread from KT was mentioned. While reading a few of those posts, I started thinking about our Kenpo techniques. If we look at them, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye pokes, groin kicks, breaks, stomps, you name it, its probably in a technique.
> 
> Doc commented that if someone has to do those things, then they haven't learned any martial arts skills.  Now, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with part of this, and hopefully Doc, or another SL4 student will chime in, for the specifics of the way things are done with those techs.
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure why there's a problem. All MAs _were_, originally, systems of effective self-defense against a violent, dangerous attacker. They have been used in this way repeatedly as far back as we have any records for; certainly, their use in military combatives suggests that there are plenty of highly skilled practitioners who are nonetheless quite capable of using them to terminate an attack in the absolute minimum of time. Once you're under attack, your life is definitely in jeopardy, and you are well-advised to do what you need to do to preserve it at minimum risk to yourself&#8212;which means, ending the attack, on your terms, in the shortest possible time. 

I cannot understand how taking this approach to a conflict represents a lack of martial skills. The whole point of Okinawan karate&#8212;the rootstock of Shotokan and other Japanese systems, of Kenpo, of Taekwondo&#8212;was maximum damage to an attacker in minimum time with minimum risk. Is efficiency in executing the techs of a skill set evidence of a lack of skill? Or are we looking at some artificial 'æsthetic' criterion, like the conceit in knife-fighting that terminating your opponent's attack with the edge of the blade is 'more elegant' than using a stabbing thrust for that effect? This sounds akin to the view that a pretty six-move forced mate in chess is somehow more skillful than a blunt-force three move forced mate. I don't know where such an idea might have come from, but it sounds like a personal taste issue, having nothing to do with the actual skill level of the practitioner. 

Excess force is always to be avoided, but that doesn't sound to me like the issue. If you look at effective bunkai for karate and TKD forms, they involve extreme damage&#8212;hard strikes to temple and throat, neck twists, eye strikes. Why is the ability to impose these decisively terminal countermeasures on a dangerous attacker not evidence of skill, if the practitioner can do it at will in the face of an all-out physical assault? I don't get it....


----------



## suicide (Mar 2, 2009)

i guess if its a obnoxious drunk that you no you could smash then yeah a basic lone kimono would be cool but what if its a ex con fresh out of state prison on drugs trying to robb you ? then brown belt techs and some would be called for %-}


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 2, 2009)

I think the advanced student can choose to execute the technique to varying degrees of intensity.

If someone grabs me, and I push their arm off of my chest, shove their leg away from me to cancel their off hand, and push them away, haven't I just executed Delayed Sword? It may not be the same degree of force, but it's built on the same chassis.

We can do that with all of our techniques, and even our basics. Can't a punch be a push, or a push a palm strike?

We don't always have to turn it up to 11, but I'm glad my amp goes up that far in case I need that little extra oomph.


-Rob


----------



## suicide (Mar 2, 2009)

:jediduel:


----------



## LawDog (Mar 3, 2009)

One must be able to "justify" the use of these types of mamming techniques.
Probably ok when,
*they are much bigger and stronger,
*likelyhood of very serious bodily harm,
*he is armed,
*more than one opponent,
*etc.
If you have that advantage of superior ability and size then you might not want to use them.
Judged by six - carried by six is easy to say but if / when it happens to you then behind the ole bars you could be and / or out of pocket forever you will be.
:uhyeah:


----------



## Carol (Mar 3, 2009)

And the key to doing that is in the mind.  Fighting on the street can't always be about pure instinct.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 3, 2009)

You need appropriate levels of force.  If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers?  Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.

If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> You need appropriate levels of force.  If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers?  Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.
> 
> If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...



Right, but it's not clear that that's exactly what Doc was saying:



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> I don't teach it. Don't need to. In the old days we called that "Women's Self-Defense Class." If one adult male has to stick his fingers in another adult man's eyes for throwing a punch at him, than he hasn't been taught any martial arts skills. That's what we used to teach women in a one time, two-hour rape prevention seminar.



It looks to me as though the idea here is that regardless of the _context_ of the punch, Doc is saying that an eye-strike indicates minimal levels of skill. If the punch is thrown in the context of a surprise attack in an otherwise empty parking garage at 10:45 Wednesday night, you'd better do _whatever_ you have to to terminate the fight favorably, and fast. Eye strikes are highly effective, and there are plenty of eye-strike-applicable movements in classical katas and hyung motions derived from those katas. Chotoku Kyan was notorious for all kinds of horrific attacks on the face of his adversaries... would we say that he wasn't taught any MA skills? 

You can argue about whether excessive force was involved or not, but it seems to me that what's at issue in Mike's post is something different: whether these simple, brutal techniques are regarded in some quarters as evidence of lack of technical skill. Since the _point_ of the MAs is to give you a maximum margin of safety when you're under physical assault, though, I don't see the basis for that kind of complaint. The karate-based arts are all about striking&#8212;that's their strategic plan. Controlling moves to set up a finishing strike or take the attacker down, sure... but you've still got to _deal_ with him once he's down, or he'll be back at you once he gets up; at least, you have to assume that, eh? In a genuinely dangerous situation, you really don't _have_ much choice but to inflict enough damage to incapacite your attack as quickly as you can&#8212;the longer the fight goes on, the more chance you have of getting hurt. Given all that, what on earth is wrong with eye strikes or comparably damaging techs? How do they count as 'low skill' techniques, when the whole point is to get a dangerous attacker out of the fight?
__________________


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 3, 2009)

I think you are right.  Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc.  They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road.  You only had to worry about getting away with your life.  The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.

Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo.  Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework.  Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight.  If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack.  For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.

It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written.  There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat.  I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation.  Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.


----------



## exile (Mar 3, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> I think you are right.  Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc.  They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road.  You only had to worry about getting away with your life.  The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.
> 
> Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo.  Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework.  Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight.  If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack.  For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.
> 
> It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written.  There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat.  I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation.  Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.



Yes, this makes sense, p.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 3, 2009)

Always try deescalating first because you can take an innocent confrontation and turn it into a life and death situation real fast, just by what you say or do.


----------



## Jdokan (Mar 3, 2009)

Avoid, Check, Maim, Kill

I think this says it all....

Applied appropriately what else do we need???


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 3, 2009)

Jdokan said:


> Avoid, Check, Maim, Kill
> 
> I think this says it all....
> 
> Applied appropriately what else do we need???


the hard and brutal techs are there for a reason, if they have been there that long than i see no reason in taking them away.

As for the situation, i agree with the above. Use what logic you can in the heat of the moment, if to much forced is used for what the situation warranted, then oh well, you are alive and hopefully unharmed. Like in previous post "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six". A far as Im concerned i will use whatever tools necessary to defend myself or loved ones, and no one will tell me other wise

B


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 3, 2009)

People may have their own internal ethical or moral reasons to attempt to use less force or less lethal techniques when engaged in self-defense.  To each their own, I say.

However, it pays to know the laws regarding self-defense where you live.  I live in Michigan. Here are the important excerpts from the Michigan law on self-defense:



> SELF-DEFENSE ACT
> Act 309 of 2006
> AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.
> 780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.
> ...



Please note that there is nothing in here about level of force used.  There is nothing about being told by the police _"You should have just twisted his arm, not broken it."_  The persistent rumors about 'level of force' or 'disproportionate force' apply to police, not to the ordinary citizen.

The law in Michigan only distinguishes between two kinds of force - deadly force and 'other than' deadly force.  That's it.  So if you knock a mugger down and pin him until the police arrive, great.  If you kick both his knees backward and he'll never walk again, also great.

Michigan has other laws relating to self-defense, including a prohibition on lawsuits - so you cannot even be sued, and another that says if you are sued on the basis that you were not entitled to use self-defense and the judge/jury rules in your favor, the plaintiff has to pay your court costs, lawyer fees, lost work wages, etc, etc.

About the worst thing that can happen to you if you apply 'too much force' in defending yourself in Michigan is if a prosecuting attorney decides that you did NOT _"honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary,"_ etc.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.  However, I do recommend looking up the law on self-defense in your own state or community and reading it.  It's worth knowing.

And again, if you feel that less force is desirable, even if the law would otherwise permit it, then go with that.  Most of you know, my own self-defense belief is that any altercation with an assailant is automatically a life-and-death struggle, so I would first attempt to disengage if I could, even if the law authorizes me to take more direct action.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 3, 2009)

I was taught that the more skill one has, the less harm one should have to do.

One of my students was brought in to see the Chief of Police after executing an arrest in which the suspect was put in the hospital.  The Chief complimented him on his martial arts prowess, and told him that he was probably the best tactical fighter on the force.  He followed that with, "If you're really that good, why do you have to hurt people."  It was a good lesson for him, one I had preached many times.  But from the Chief...

Morihei Ueshiba developed aikido (the way of harmony) as the highest expression of his art.  Mitose stated that true self defense was to escape a situation with no physical contact between opponents.

A higher level of skill should allow you some room to operate and to make some choices.  It may be necessary to move up and down the force continuum as the situation unfolds.  Aside from the physical skill necessary to do what needs to be done, there is skill involved in choosing the appropriate solution to the situation at hand, and skill at being able to adjust it.  

It is my opinion that real skill comes from assessing a situation correctly in a split second, and effecting a positive defensive solution using the minimum amount of destruction necessary.  That includes recognizing the danger ahead of time and avoiding it.  It also includes adjusting my response based on the intent of the attacker, the skill of the attacker, other individuals who may be harmed by a possible wrong decision on my part, legalities, etc.

There is responsibility with skill.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 3, 2009)

With respect, I disagree with your statements.



KenpoDave said:


> I was taught that the more skill one has, the less harm one should have to do.



As an ethical belief, that's fine.



> One of my students was brought in to see the Chief of Police after executing an arrest in which the suspect was put in the hospital.  The Chief complimented him on his martial arts prowess, and told him that he was probably the best tactical fighter on the force.  He followed that with, "If you're really that good, why do you have to hurt people."  It was a good lesson for him, one I had preached many times.  But from the Chief...



A police officer has obligations that ordinary citizens do not, including the general obligation to use the minimum amount of force required to affect an arrest.  That is partially because police officers are required to put their lives in jeopardy as part of their job description.

I do not think such advice is applicable to, or wise, for an ordinary citizen.



> Morihei Ueshiba developed aikido (the way of harmony) as the highest expression of his art.  Mitose stated that true self defense was to escape a situation with no physical contact between opponents.



I agree, and I believe that self-defense begins with situational awareness, and includes simple expedients like removing yourself from dangerous situations before they become dangerous to you, if you can.  Running away works too, if that avenue is open to you.  It's all 'self-defense'.

The primary directive of self-defense is just that - self defense.  If you can back away from a challenge or a fight and avoid it altogether, that is a much safer alternative than engaging in a fight, even if you are confident of victory.

However, if you cannot avoid violence, then again, the first and only rule is to defend yourself.  Nothing else matters.



> A higher level of skill should allow you some room to operate and to make some choices.  It may be necessary to move up and down the force continuum as the situation unfolds.  Aside from the physical skill necessary to do what needs to be done, there is skill involved in choosing the appropriate solution to the situation at hand, and skill at being able to adjust it.



If you are talking about sparring or kumite, then I agree.

If you are talking about self-defense, I could not disagree more.

First - self-defense is a life-or-death struggle.  You have no assurance that if you lose, you will live.  You must assume that if you lose, you die.

Second - if you are indeed fighting for your life, there is no 'situation' to allow to unfold.  You goal must be to end the confrontation as quickly as possible, because every blow you trade, every second you are still struggling, is another step closer to your own death.

Third - again, if you are indeed fighting for your life, your assailant is not holding back.  They are using everything they have, and they are fully determined to kill you using any means necessary.  If they have a knife, they will use it.  If they have a gun, they will use it.  If they have not used it yet, it is because they prefer not to unless they should begin to lose, then they will.  Every moment you delay ending the fight, they have another opportunity to use that hidden weapon on you and kill you.

Fourth - you may well know your own skill, but you do not know your attacker's.  He may be evenly matched with you, he may be better.  Or he may be stronger, faster, more experienced, flat-out lucky, or just immune to pain due to drugs, etc.  Your careful escalation may quickly result in your own overmatching with a singe decisive blow against you.

Fifth - the mind boggles at the potential plight of the poor student, who knows a variety of techniques and is trying to sort through them in search of the least lethal whilst being pummeled.



> It is my opinion that real skill comes from assessing a situation correctly in a split second, and effecting a positive defensive solution using the minimum amount of destruction necessary.



That may indeed be "real skill."  If it is, you can have it.  I will inartfully and inelegantly bash in an attacker's head with a brick, if one happens to be handy.



> That includes recognizing the danger ahead of time and avoiding it.  It also includes adjusting my response based on the intent of the attacker, the skill of the attacker, other individuals who may be harmed by a possible wrong decision on my part, legalities, etc.



I do not care what the attacker's intent is.  I'm under attack.  I will assume he intends to kill me.  I will also assume his skill is greater than mine, so I will use everything I have to defeat him.  I will attempt to avoid harming others only in the sense that I always aim center mass.  As to legalities, I would presume that I am fighting only because I have been attacked and I am reasonably in fear of my life.  I can think of no other reason I'd be fighting.  If so, I have no fear of legal consequences.  My life is my first priority, the rest can wait.



> There is responsibility with skill.



When self-defense is involved, I think the biggest responsibility that martial arts skills teaches is that fights can often be avoided, and should.  Knowing that many of us are skilled in ending human lives should also teach us not to take human life casually.  These, I agree with.

Once the need to defend one's life is upon them, I think the only responsibility is to survive.  How that is done is really of no consequence.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 3, 2009)

Mr. Mattocks, that is a great post.

I have often said much the same thing, to much derision.

There is a big, BIG, difference between martial dueling and self defense.

One is a competitive activity where my goal is victory, one may very well be the last thing I ever experience on this earth and the only goal is making it home to see my family one more time.

You can't equate the two, and all the talk of mastery allowing for less violence doesn't apply to self defense. Self defense is about survival, and there is no time to screw around.

That doesn't mean every self defense situation requires you to kill your opponent. Sometimes it's best to walk, or run, away. Sometimes you can just push an opponent down and then run. But when you have to fight for your life, there's no time to play games. 

I too would apply the "brick" defense if necessary.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 3, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Mr. Mattocks, that is a great post.
> 
> I have often said much the same thing, to much derision.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the kind words.  On re-reading my own words, I would like to add that it is not my 'intent' to kill the person who attacks me.  If I kick out a knee and they fall down and can no longer attack me, I will stop.  If I kick 'em in the pills and they double over and stagger away, same thing.  What I mean is that self-defense is no holds barred.  I will eye gouge, I will bite, I will pull hair, I will rip off an ear or crush a windpipe - whatever has to be done to ensure I walk away.  I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone.  I just want to live.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone. I just want to live.


 
Bingo.


-Rob


----------



## Matt (Mar 3, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't want to kill anyone - I don't even want to hurt anyone.  I just want to live.



I think that sums it up better than anything I might add.


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2009)

exile said:


> I'm not really sure why there's a problem. All MAs _were_, originally, systems of effective self-defense against a violent, dangerous attacker. They have been used in this way repeatedly as far back as we have any records for; certainly, their use in military combatives suggests that there are plenty of highly skilled practitioners who are nonetheless quite capable of using them to terminate an attack in the absolute minimum of time. Once you're under attack, your life is definitely in jeopardy, and you are well-advised to do what you need to do to preserve it at minimum risk to yourselfwhich means, ending the attack, on your terms, in the shortest possible time.
> 
> I cannot understand how taking this approach to a conflict represents a lack of martial skills. The whole point of Okinawan karatethe rootstock of Shotokan and other Japanese systems, of Kenpo, of Taekwondowas maximum damage to an attacker in minimum time with minimum risk. Is efficiency in executing the techs of a skill set evidence of a lack of skill? Or are we looking at some artificial 'æsthetic' criterion, like the conceit in knife-fighting that terminating your opponent's attack with the edge of the blade is 'more elegant' than using a stabbing thrust for that effect? This sounds akin to the view that a pretty six-move forced mate in chess is somehow more skillful than a blunt-force three move forced mate. I don't know where such an idea might have come from, but it sounds like a personal taste issue, having nothing to do with the actual skill level of the practitioner.
> 
> Excess force is always to be avoided, but that doesn't sound to me like the issue. If you look at effective bunkai for karate and TKD forms, they involve extreme damagehard strikes to temple and throat, neck twists, eye strikes. Why is the ability to impose these decisively terminal countermeasures on a dangerous attacker not evidence of skill, if the practitioner can do it at will in the face of an all-out physical assault? I don't get it....


 
Well, yes, thats what I thought as well.  I mean, aside from something like TaiChi, pretty much every art out there involves destruction.


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> You need appropriate levels of force. If a drunk buddy at your Christmas party is a little agitated and grabs your suit lapel, do you think violently breaking his arm is going to endear you to the boss and other co-workers? Now if a drunk outside of a bar grabs your shirt and he has a beer bottle in his other hand, then you have the tools to break the grabbing arm as you move offline and then strike to the throat to end it.
> 
> If all you have in your tool box is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...


 


exile said:


> Right, but it's not clear that that's exactly what Doc was saying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yes, Exile read my mind with this post.   I certainly think that we, as MAists, need to be able to adapt to the situation, but as he said, I got the impression that ANY brutal strike would mean that the person executing it doesn't have any skill.  And yes, the post in question from the link wasn't clear.


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> I think you are right. Many of the traditional applications involve "soft tissue" strikes to the throat, eyes, etc. They were designed in a time when you didn't have to worry about getting arrested for "excessive force" when some bandit mugged you on a country road. You only had to worry about getting away with your life. The applications and lessons that are taught fit the culture and the times they were created for.
> 
> Doc's viewpoint is not from a TMA, but a CMA influenced approach through SGM Parker's kenpo. Ed Parker created his version of kenpo to fit into an american style of fighting and framework. Doc has written about this before and as he made his kenpo more available to the masses SGM Parker knew that he couldn't control the quality of that information so he put in lower level applications to give people a viable means as they sought out and learned better ways to control and end the fight. If you look at many of the techniques found in SGM Parker's kenpo (the commercial side of it) you will see a disportionate response to the attack. For example, in the yellow belt techniques there is "Sword and Hammer", a new student learns that when someone grabs your right shoulder, how to strike them in the throat with a knifehand strike ( the sword) and then follow it up with a hammer to the groin.
> 
> It teaches certain applications and principles for the new student to apply, but it is NOT legal to use this technique as written. There is a higher level of knowledge that a student learns to control this without resorting to lethal force right off the bat. I think the point of this is, not to only rely on the eye strikes and throat strikes, but start to expand from there and come up with varying levels of response for the situation. Then if really needed you know what tool fits the job.


 
Yes, it has been said before that there is the version that is more in depth and the version that is designed for the commercial school, the latter being what the majority of schools teach.  In other words, it was almost more for the quick fix, so to speak, instead of the SL4 version, where more time is taken to look at the less lethal side.

Of course, I have to wonder....you said that SGM Parker wouldn't be able to have the QC over what was being taught, why wasn't the non commercial or SL4 version taught to everyone?  IMO, it seems to me that very few, or more appropriately 1 person has that version while everyone else has the commercial version.  How could this be possible?  Out of all of the students that he taught, only 1 has it different?

Please dont take this as me bashing or taking a shot at SL4 or anyone in particular, I'm just making an observation.


----------



## MJS (Mar 3, 2009)

Regarding a few posts that mentioned the more skill you have, the less you should have to hurt someone.  This goes right back to the vauge link.  As it was said, I get the distinct impression that ANY use of a lethal tecnique means that the person doing it, doesn't have skill.  So going on that, no matter what the attack is, the response should always be the same, which means it should be a less lethal one and there should be little to no injury on the attackers part.  

I have to disagree with this.  I think that we should base our response off of whats presented to us, however, if more force is needed, then we escalate from there.  Much like a LEO....if they're faced with someone who is just being a jerk verbally, using a less lethal tool, ie: OC, instead of a gun of course is the better option.  Put a gun in the badguys hand, and using anything less than your own gun would be foolish.  This shouldn't imply that the LEO is less skilled because he's using his gun, but if we go by what the linked post implies, that is the impression it gives.


----------



## Matt (Mar 3, 2009)

MJS said:


> Well, yes, thats what I thought as well.  I mean, aside from something like TaiChi, pretty much every art out there involves destruction.



I'm not sure about that - some of the nastiest tricks I know, I learned from Tai Chi.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> *Regarding a few posts that mentioned the more skill you have, the less you should have to hurt someone.  This goes right back to the vague link.  As it was said, I get the distinct impression that ANY use of a lethal technique means that the person doing it, doesn't have skill.  So going on that, no matter what the attack is, the response should always be the same, which means it should be a less lethal one and there should be little to no injury on the attackers part.  *
> 
> I have to disagree with this.  I think that we should base our response off of whats presented to us, however, if more force is needed, then we escalate from there.  Much like a LEO....if they're faced with someone who is just being a jerk verbally, using a less lethal tool, ie: OC, instead of a gun of course is the better option.  Put a gun in the badguys hand, and using anything less than your own gun would be foolish.  This shouldn't imply that the LEO is less skilled because he's using his gun, but if we go by what the linked post implies, that is the impression it gives.



I disagree with that as well for multiple reasons. we are taught early in our training what the "soft targets" are and that very little force on our parts can bring someone down, thats why we are shown how and why to attack those targets. We also learn that appropriate force to the same targets can cause serious irreversible damage or even death. This shows us that these targets are not the ones we always go for unless we absolutely have or to diffuse a situation quickly. 

Like you said MJS, the situation we are given dictates what response we use. The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them. 

On the flip side you have a 3-4 degree black belt, who is approached by 2-3 people in a park with knives, he/she defends him/herself and seriously injures 1 or 2 of the attackers. People are going to want to put this person on the chopping blocking and say they should have been able to exert enough contol not to cause any harm to the attackers.

Is this acurate? am I way out in left field on this? if im right WTF?

B


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them.
> 
> On the flip side you have a 3-4 degree black belt, who is approached by 2-3 people in a park with knives, he/she defends him/herself and seriously injures 1 or 2 of the attackers. People are going to want to put this person on the chopping blocking and say they should have been able to exert enough contol not to cause any harm to the attackers.
> 
> Is this acurate? am I way out in left field on this? if im right WTF?



In the first example you gave, of a purse-snatching, the law regarding self-defense might not even apply - at least in Michigan, a person has to be _reasonably and honestly in fear for their own life or safety_, not protecting their purse or shopping bag.  A person MIGHT be in fear of their life as well, depending on the circumstances, but it isn't black-and-white.

I think any disagreement we may have will be based on whether you are talking about an ethical duty or a legal duty.

*Ethical:* We may be trained to use the least-lethal techniques we can to defend ourselves, out of concern for our fellow human beings.  Depends on martial arts style, teacher, and one's own internal ethics system, I think.

*Legal:* In most states of the US, if you have the legal right to self-defense, then there are no 'rules' involving what manner you may do it.  If you end up breaking an arm, you break an arm.  If you're a black belt with decades of experience, or a white belt with six months, it makes no difference - to the law.

When you say _"People are going to..."_ do this or say that, whom are you referring to?  The police?  Or the general public? 

I recommend finding and reading the laws of your own state or locality regarding self-defense.  That should give you the 'legal' answers you seek.  How you choose to interpret that through your own internal ethical system is up to you, of course.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the first example you gave, of a purse-snatching, the law regarding self-defense might not even apply - at least in Michigan, a person has to be _reasonably and honestly in fear for their own life or safety_, not protecting their purse or shopping bag.  A person MIGHT be in fear of their life as well, depending on the circumstances, but it isn't black-and-white.
> 
> I think any disagreement we may have will be based on whether you are talking about an ethical duty or a legal duty.
> 
> ...



really anybody in that statement. the police, general public if it made the big headlines or the prosecutor even. any opinion you what to give on that will be much appreciated.

B


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> really anybody in that statement. the police, general public if it made the big headlines or the prosecutor even. any opinion you what to give on that will be much appreciated.



Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force.  This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen.  The standards are not the same.

Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_.  That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily.  They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force.  Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.

The average citizen is not held to that standard.  Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.

But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear.  They say that _if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself_.  You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to.  Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist.  That's pretty much it.

Some states, including mine (Michigan) also include civil liability shield laws - meaning that if I legally employ self-defense, I not only cannot be arrested, I cannot be sued.  There is a _legal presumption_ that I did nothing wrong.  This can be overturned only if the law enforcement agency concerned finds through their investigation that I *did not* have the legal right to defend myself.  For example, if I was not genuinely in fear of my life, then I would not have the right to self-defense.

There is no _'degree'_ of force which I must adhere to.  If I break an arm, knock the guy down, or break his knees so he never walks again - it doesn't matter at all.  People can *SAY *anything they like. They cannot *do* anything about it.  I am not required to 'escalate' the use of force as the police are.

I know that people like to share stories and I hear a lot of those things - even from police officers, sometimes.  That you might be raked over the coals if some guy jumps you and you break his arm, but the cop thinks you could have just pushed him down instead.  Nope.  Not going to happen.  It's just rumors, it is not true.

Again, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.  Find and read the law regarding self-defense in your location.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force.  This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen.  The standards are not the same.
> 
> Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_.  That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily.  They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force.  Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.
> 
> ...


thanks a lot that was a great response

B


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_.  That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily.  They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force.  Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.
> 
> The average citizen is not held to that standard.  Again, you have to read the laws regarding self-defense in your own state or locality to find out the details.
> 
> But in general, self-defense laws are pretty clear.  They say that _if you are genuinely in fear of your life, you may defend yourself_.  You are required in some states to first attempt to retreat - in other states you don't have to.  Once you perceive that the danger is over, you have the responsibility to cease and desist.  That's pretty much it.



Not exactly; the general rule of self defense for anyone is that the force used must be reasonable and justifiable in light of the total circumstances.  The distinction is the end goal; generally, a LEO is seeking to make that apprehension or arrest while an "ordinary" citizen is trying to end the attack and get away.  A police officer or a trained fighter may be held to a different definition and standard of what's justifiable and appropriate.  There are numerous threads where this issue is discussed at length here on MT alone... let alone other self-defense oriented forums.

What that means for our training in any style if we're focused on self-defense is that we must focus on being able to recognize the circumstances, and use the appropriate range of responses.  Without trying to be so complete in developing those ranges that we create an overload in our reflexes and end up freezing in a lock on the OODA loop.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> A police officer or a trained fighter may be held to a different definition and standard of what's justifiable and appropriate.



I respectfully disagree.

I would have to see the specific law or case cite.  I have seen and read a lot of state self-defense laws.  I have also not seen a single case of a person engaged in self-defense that was charged with a crime for using an inappropriate level of force.  I think that's just rumor, unless someone has a cite.

Show me one law on self-defense that sets level of force requirements.  It may well have been _'discussed to death'_ everywhere, but lots of people can as wrong as one.  I've done a lot of Googling - all I see are repeated assertions that martial artists specifically have to _'be careful'_ to use an _'appropriate level of force'_ or they could be arrested - not one cite.  In the US, at least, if it's not established in law, it isn't a law.  You cannot charge a person with a crime that does not exist.  If it exists, show me.

Let me give you an example: 

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200510/1128900145.html

In the above link, a Florida State University course teaches self-defense.  It also asserts _"Providing protection for yourself or a loved one from violence is imperative and using only the appropriate level of force is the law."_

But is that true?  No, it is not:

http://www.self-defender.net/law2.htm

I won't quote the entire thing, but if you read it, you might not that there is no reference to _'appropriate level of force'_ anywhere in it.  You cannot be charged with violating a law that does not exist.

However, I can think of situations where your 'level of force' standard might be used.

First - in self-defense situations that do not allow you the use of deadly force.  For example, if you think you are about to be slapped by a woman you just insulted at a party.  No reasonable person would think you had the right to break her arm or kill her.  But the laws on self-defense are the determining factor here - not your martial arts skill.  If you are NOT reasonably in fear of your life, then you are NOT authorized to use deadly force to defend yourself.  That would be true whether you are a martial arts expert or you happen to have a gun.

Second - in tort (civil) law.  In states that do not provide a shield on civil liability for people who are legitimately defending their lives, you may well find yourself facing an attorney for the plaintiff who demands to know why you did not use your vast superhuman fighting skills to merely stop his client's violent attack with a Jedi mind trick instead of kicking in his ribs.  That's certainly a risk you run when you defend yourself, which is why I do encourage people to find out what the law on self-defense is in their state.

Again - no disrespect intended, but I hear and read a lot of _'you have to use an appropriate level or risk arrest'_ and I never see a single cite.  I don't know where people are getting this, but it isn't from the laws I have seen.



> What that means for our training in any style if we're focused on self-defense is that we must focus on being able to recognize the circumstances, and use the appropriate range of responses.  Without trying to be so complete in developing those ranges that we create an overload in our reflexes and end up freezing in a lock on the OODA loop.



With respect, I disagree with this as well.  Having more ability might well mean choosing a 'less lethal' response, but from my point of view, the purpose is to have more capability and more options to end the attack, lethality not being a major consideration.


----------



## MJS (Mar 4, 2009)

Matt said:


> I'm not sure about that - some of the nastiest tricks I know, I learned from Tai Chi.


 
My apologies.  I was speaking more of what it looks like on the surface.  If you were to look at TaiChi it gives the soft, fluid impression from the start.  Compare that to a Kenpo technique, and the differences should be obvious.  

On a side note, a few guys from my Kenpo school study TaiChi.  Its amazing working with them when they're doing a Kenpo or Arnis technique, as you can see and feel some subtle differences in application.


----------



## MJS (Mar 4, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> I disagree with that as well for multiple reasons. we are taught early in our training what the "soft targets" are and that very little force on our parts can bring someone down, thats why we are shown how and why to attack those targets. We also learn that appropriate force to the same targets can cause serious irreversible damage or even death. This shows us that these targets are not the ones we always go for unless we absolutely have or to diffuse a situation quickly.
> 
> Like you said MJS, the situation we are given dictates what response we use. The said part is that if you take a low ranked person and put them in a situation where they are get there purse or shopping bag snached, they hold on to it and apply force and techs they learned to defend themselves and break the guys for somehow. people will look at this person, learn what rank and how long they have been doing this and will praise them that they knew what they did and that no harm came to them.
> 
> ...


 
I think you hit the nail on the head.  I mean, it shouldn't be held that if you're X degree balck belt, that you shouldn't use force to defend yourself.  I still stand by the notion that we should judge each situation.  

EX:  I'm on my yearly trip to NYC with my wife, sister and brother in law and I'm approcahed by a street person asking for money.  I refuse and they keep walking behind me, asking again.  I tell them no again, and now they reach out and grab my shoulder.  I don't think breaking the guys arm and nose is necessary.  Now, if he pulled a blade with his free hand, then thats a different story. 

I'm walking to my car and someone tries to mug me and they have a blunt object in their hand, then yes, perhaps their amr will be broke.  Is it necessary to break it?  Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, I think, given the nature of the situation I'm justified in doing that.


----------



## just2kicku (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force.  This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen.  The standards are not the same.
> 
> Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_.  That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily.  They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force.  Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.
> 
> ...



I am gonna somewhat have to disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard, but often do not have to account for their actions.

Let's take for example, you go to a bar to have a couple of beers. You get there, and some stupid drunk starts talking trash calling names and getting in your face. You tell him to back the F off and he shows you a gun. (True story)  I hit him with a bottle and attack where I see the blood coming from, now all I'm thinking is taking out the threat. Adrenaline pumping I'm wailing on this guy till he's a bloody stump. Now from behind I am being pummeled with batons and cuffed. On the way out my head seems to find the door frame on the place I'm being escorted out of while cuffed, and the doorpost of the cruiser a few more times as I'm getting in the back. Come to find out, he's an off duty cop! 

Even tho charges were ulimately dropped, it still wasted my time in jail ( 9 glorious days to be exact) and I heard nothing of this guy getting into any trouble for 1) not identifying himself 2)  being a drunk idiot with a firearm.

So the standard is not the same, I for one, if had to do it again would have jacked the guy up more than I did. Don't get me wrong, I know some good cops and these guys put there life on the line everyday. But there is a differerence between upholding the law and following the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> EX:  I'm on my yearly trip to NYC with my wife, sister and brother in law and I'm approcahed by a street person asking for money.  I refuse and they keep walking behind me, asking again.  I tell them no again, and now they reach out and grab my shoulder.  I don't think breaking the guys arm and nose is necessary.  Now, if he pulled a blade with his free hand, then thats a different story.



If you were not in fear of your life, then you are not justified in using deadly force in most states.  You say you would not be in fear for your life - then you would be correct not to break his arm.

However, if you were in reasonable fear for your life, you would be.  It's not the level of force - it's the level of threat you reasonably felt.



> I'm walking to my car and someone tries to mug me and they have a blunt object in their hand, then yes, perhaps their amr will be broke.  Is it necessary to break it?  Maybe, maybe not, but IMO, I think, given the nature of the situation I'm justified in doing that.



Absolutely. Or whatever else comes to hand or mind.  But again, you're reasonably in fear of your life.

With respect - I see people getting wrapped around the axle with this whole 'break an arm, or just twist it a little' etc thing.  Why do people resist simply Googling for their own state's laws on self-defense and reading them?  Really, it cannot be that hard.  It's making something that is really quite simple into a very complex and thorny problem.

NY State Law:



> § 35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally.
> 
> 6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of  this  article, use  physical  force upon another person in self-defense or defense of a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent  larceny of  or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or  prevent an escape from custody. Whenever a person is authorized  by  any such  provision  to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, _nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or *qualify* such authorization._



It is just what you said.  If you're not in reasonable fear for your life, you can use force not to include deadly force.  If you are, you can.  Section 35.15 talks about when deadly force can be used, it's very commonsense and understandable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> I am gonna somewhat have to disagree. Police should be held to a higher standard, but often do not have to account for their actions.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> So the standard is not the same, I for one, if had to do it again would have jacked the guy up more than I did. Don't get me wrong, I know some good cops and these guys put there life on the line everyday. But there is a differerence between upholding the law and following the law.



Police officers break the law too.  I'm sorry it happened to you, but it does not change what the laws say.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People may have their own internal ethical or moral reasons to attempt to use less force or less lethal techniques when engaged in self-defense. To each their own, I say.
> 
> However, it pays to know the laws regarding self-defense where you live. I live in Michigan. Here are the important excerpts from the Michigan law on self-defense:
> 
> ...


 
Unless Michigan is an exceptional outlier (which I doubt) you are wrong. This statute addresses the use of deadly force only. It is quite probable there is another dealing with the use of force more generally or that the case law in the state is well-developed in that regard. This article suggests that Michigan, like many other states, have by statute dropped the duty to retreat to use deadly force: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html And this appears to be the statute, so I certainly wouldn't read it as expansively as you seem to.

And it would be incorrect to say that everything thing else is simply considered 'other than deadly force.' Since the days of yore in jolly old England, the law of self defense there have been (at least) three requirements to exercising this privilege: 1) you weren't responsible for causing the affray, 2) you reasonably believe that are in immediate danger, and 3) you respond with _*reasonable*_ force. 

So, if you maim a drunkard that took a sloppy swing at you, chances are likely you are going to face charges. You simply cannot legally justify tearing someone apart just because they took a swing at you. That's not using reasonable force to subdue the threat. There was a case around here not too long ago were the 'defender' threw meth manufacturing chemicals in the face of his attacker. That wasn't self-defense. Or another, where after a few beers some guys in the street got in a fight, pulled the guy's shirt over his head and beat the crap out of him. Then, despite the claim that the downed man was getting ready to charge, the kick to the face was held not to be self-defense. Or how about this case, where the wife held a broken piece of glass, the husband pushed her, and she stabbed herself in the neck and died--and it was held that self-defense wasn't viable: http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008SepTerm/08-5006.pdf

There seems to be this notion among martial artists in particular that every street confrontation amounts to a gladiatorial combat in the Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. If you respond to a 'pedestrian' attack, with a chop the attacker's throat, then break his arms, blow out his knees, smash his testicles, and pop out his eyes, you've responded with a level of force that caused serious bodily harm, which is essentially considered the same as lethal force. So, if you aren't facing lethal force, then doing most of that stuff will transform you from a guy that was attacked into a felon.

Prosecutors deal with cases of real violence every day. Trust me when I tell you that they will not be impressed that after 20 years of martial arts training you maimed a guy for pushing you in a parking lot outside a bar.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I would have to see the specific law or case cite. I have seen and read a lot of state self-defense laws. I have also not seen a single case of a person engaged in self-defense that was charged with a crime for using an inappropriate level of force. I think that's just rumor, unless someone has a cite.
> 
> Show me one law on self-defense that sets level of force requirements.


 
Here's one from the Michigan Supreme Court.

In _People v Heflin,_ 434 Mich 482, 509 (opinion by Riley, C.J.); 456 NW2d 10 (1990), the Supreme Court explained that "an act committed in self-defense _but with excessive force_ or in which defendant was the initial aggressor _does not_ meet the elements of lawful self-defense." (emphasis added)


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.


 
Police are generally permitted to use reasonable force, which also appears to be the case in Michigan:

"2. Arrest-Reasonable Force-Resisting Arrest-Statutes. 
The right of police officers of a city under a statute to arrest and detain carries with it the right to use reasonable force in case of resistance (MCLA 117.34)." Delude v Raasakka, 391 Mich. 296.

And I think this is more appropriate than trying to shackle them to a 'mininal force standard' which would invite a lot of litigation and countless adminstrative reviews.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> Unless Michigan is an exceptional outlier (which I doubt) you are wrong. This statute addresses the use of deadly force only. It is quite probable there is another dealing with the use of force more generally or that the case law in the state is well-developed in that regard. This article suggests that Michigan, like many other states, have by statute dropped the duty to retreat to use deadly force: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204720,00.html And this appears to be the statute, so I certainly wouldn't read it as expansively as you seem to.



I do not understand your statement.  I quoted Michigan law on self defense, line and verse.  If you think there is another law, cite please.  What you "probably think" doesn't matter.  Cite or withdraw your comment.

Second, the news article you quoted is quite correct, and agrees with what I said when I quoted current Michigan law.  It had to do with the latest changes to that law, which remove the 'duty to retreat' and establish a 'presumption' that the person using deadly force in self-defense was justified in doing so - it is now harder for a criminal investigator or prosecutor to prove that the person who used deadly force was NOT authorized to do so.  I have not said anything else.



> And it would be incorrect to say that everything thing else is simply considered 'other than deadly force.'



Yes, it would.  Read the statute, please.  There are only two kinds of force defined in the self-defense statute in Michigan.  Deadly force and 'other than' deadly force.  That is all.  If you have evidence of another, again, please cite.



> Since the days of yore in jolly old England, the law of self defense there have been (at least) three requirements to exercising this privilege: 1) you weren't responsible for causing the affray, 2) you reasonably believe that are in immediate danger, and 3) you respond with _*reasonable*_ force.



That may be true in Jolly Olde England, but it is not true in Michigan.



> So, if you maim a drunkard that took a sloppy swing at you, chances are likely you are going to face charges.



The requirement for applying deadly force in Michigan is:



> (a) The individual *honestly and reasonably believes* that the use of *deadly force* is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.


 

So, if you don't think said sloppy drunk is going to kill you or commit great bodily harm, you cannot use deadly force.  Nor have I ever said you could.



However, if you do not think he is going to kill you or commit great bodily harm, then:




> (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force *other than deadly force* may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she *honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force* by another individual.


 
 

Again, there are only two definitions.  Deadly force, and other than deadly force.  Nothing about black belts, martial arts, duty to try the non-lethal techniques first, proportionate use of force, none of that.  It does not exist in Michigan law, period.



> You simply cannot legally justify tearing someone apart just because they took a swing at you.



Correct, if you are not reasonably in fear of your life.  If you are, you can.



> That's not using reasonable force to subdue the threat.



There is no 'reasonable force' statute in Michigan (or most states).  Either cite the law, or quit saying it, because it simply is not true.

You either have or you do not have the right to defend yourself with deadly force.  If you do, the manner in which you defend yourself is completely irrelevant.



> There was a case around here not too long ago were the 'defender' threw meth manufacturing chemicals in the face of his attacker. That wasn't self-defense.



Correct.  I have never said that you can kill someone for throwing a jar of stuff on you.



> Or another, where after a few beers some guys in the street got in a fight, pulled the guy's shirt over his head and beat the crap out of him. Then, despite the claim that the downed man was getting ready to charge, the kick to the face was held not to be self-defense.



The law says that the right to self-defense ends when the threat ends. Clearly, the police did not believe that the threat still existed when the final 'kick to the face' was delivered.  Possibly because the man was down and had just had the crap kicked out of him, eh?



> Or how about this case, where the wife held a broken piece of glass, the husband pushed her, and she stabbed herself in the neck and died--and it was held that self-defense wasn't viable: http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2008SepTerm/08-5006.pdf



Was the husband reasonably in fear of his life?  Apparently, the courts did not think so.

Read page 5. The judge very carefully asks - repeatedly - if the husband was in fear of his life.  The guy says NO.  If you're not in fear of your life, then you cannot claim self-defense as an excuse for employing deadly force.  This is not rocket science here.



> There seems to be this notion among martial artists in particular that every street confrontation amounts to a gladiatorial combat in the Thunderdome, where two men enter and one man leaves. If you respond to a 'pedestrian' attack, with a chop the attacker's throat, then break his arms, blow out his knees, smash his testicles, and pop out his eyes, you've responded with a level of force that caused serious bodily harm, which is essentially considered the same as lethal force. So, if you aren't facing lethal force, then doing most of that stuff will transform you from a guy that was attacked into a felon.



I haven't been in any kind of fight in years.  I don't go in bars or go around people who like to fight.  I'm not a criminal and don't hang out with criminals.

I don't know what a 'pedestrian attack' is.  Some guy randomly attacks me and does NOT want to kill me?  I am 48 years old and that has never happened to me.  I cannot imagine any circumstances under which it would.

If I am ever attacked on the street, I have no reason to believe it is anything EXCEPT an attack on my life.  It would STUPID of me to assume otherwise.

But again, what you claim is true - in that if I am NOT in fear of my life, then I CANNOT use deadly force.  I KEEP SAYING THAT.



> Prosecutors deal with cases of real violence every day. Trust me when I tell you that they will not be impressed that after 20 years of martial arts training you maimed a guy for pushing you in a parking lot outside a bar.



I never gave that example.  If I had, you would be right.  I've not suggested that in any way, shape, or form.

Every example you have given is either not one in which self-defense is justified, or not one in which the victim was reasonably in fear of their life, so they were not justified in using deadly force.  Your understanding of the law is woefully lacking, and despite the simplicity of actually looking up and reading the self-defense statute in your state or country, you just repeat a bunch of stuff you heard somewhere and insist it must be true.  For shame, sir.

I will repeat once more.  In general, if you are attacked and you reasonably believe that your life is in danger, most states allow you to use deadly force in self-defense.  What form that takes is not relevant, and there are no 'level of force' laws that I am aware of that apply to ordinary citizens with regard to using deadly force in self-defense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> Police are generally permitted to use reasonable force, which also appears to be the case in Michigan:
> 
> "2. Arrest-Reasonable Force-Resisting Arrest-Statutes.
> The right of police officers of a city under a statute to arrest and detain carries with it the right to use *reasonable force* in case of resistance (MCLA 117.34)." Delude v Raasakka, 391 Mich. 296.
> ...



Reasonable force = minimal force standard.  They're the same.  You keep proving my point and then insisting I'm wrong.

Citizens are not required to use 'reasonable force'.  That's for police.  Which is what I said, and what you just proved.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> Here's one from the Michigan Supreme Court.
> 
> In _People v Heflin,_ 434 Mich 482, 509 (opinion by Riley, C.J.); 456 NW2d 10 (1990), the Supreme Court explained that "an act committed in self-defense _but with excessive force_ or in which *defendant was the initial aggressor* _does not_ meet the elements of lawful self-defense." (emphasis added)



The *"defendant was the initial aggressor*." The standard for self-defense was not met.  Again, exactly what I've said, you keep proving it, and then saying I'm wrong.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The *"defendant was the initial aggressor*." The standard for self-defense was not met. Again, exactly what I've said, you keep proving it, and then saying I'm wrong.


 
You plainly missed the 'or' in the statement. If you remove either disjunctive clause and read it, the entire sentence is quite plain.

And reasonable force may be more than minimal force, hence the use of the word reasonable. If you can't understand that different words mean different things and have different legal consequences, I really can't help you. 

Regarding the rest, you can try all sorts of fallacies of reasoning to avoid the fact your conclusion was wrong, but in the end it's still wrong. What I am taking particular issue with is your assertion that there is no standard for the level of force permitted when engage in self-defense. There is, it's called "reasonable force." 

I do this for a living, and I am quite good at it. I've been part of making sure people spend time in jail for making legal arguments even better than the ones your are trying to make.

But don't believe me, that is your prerogative.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> I do this for a living, and I am quite good at it. I've been part of making sure people spend time in jail for making legal arguments even better than the ones your are trying to make.



Are you trying to imply that you are an attorney or a police officer?  Because with all due respect, if that's what you are saying, then no, I do not believe you.  In any case, I think we have reached the end of this particular discussion.  You have stated your beliefs, and I have stated mine.  Thank you for your time.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Police are required to adhere to standards of their department regarding use of force. This is often and incorrectly confused with standards of self-defense when applied by the average citizen. The standards are not the same.
> 
> Police are generally required by their own department's rules to use the _'minimum amount of force necessary to effect an apprehension'_. That means they don't shoot a guy who jumps them, necessarily. They might be required to first attempt to use the least-lethal response, such as pepper spray or mace, taser, baton, and so on, prior to resorting to deadly force. Police are required to put their lives on the line, and while they are still entitled to 'self defense' like any citizen, it is their job to arrest criminals, not kill them.
> 
> ...


 
You are forgetting a couple of things.  First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right.  Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test.  Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did?  That is always a big gamble.  Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.

1) A person has the right under *certain circumstances*.  If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).

2) Judge the defendant's conduct according to how circumstances appeared at the time they acted.

3) First, defendant must have honestly and reasonably believed that they had to use force to protect themself.  If belief was honest and reasonable, person could act at once to defend themself, even if it turns out later that they were wrong about how much danger they were in.

4) Second, the person is only justified in using the degree of force that seems necessary at the time to protect themself.  the defendant *must have* used the kind of force that was appropriate to the attack made and the circumstances as they saw them.  When you decide whether force used was what seemed necessary, you should consider whether the defendant knew about any other ways of protecting themself, but *you may* also consider how the excitement of the moment affected the choice made.

5) Third, the right to defend lasts only as long as it seems necessary for the purpose of protection.

6) Fourth, person claiming self-defense must not have acted wrongfully and brought on the assualt.  

That is why cops will tell you that you can be raked over the coals.  You got the bad guy giving a completely different story about what happened and he has the broken arm.  Is that going to be reasonable?  Depends on what the jury thinks.  Again, you are going to be spending lots of money to prove otherwise.  I know our prosecutor looks at "equal force" as big factor in prosecution of these cases, that is another reason why police will tell you these things, it isn't rumors it is how things are dealt with legally on the other end.


----------



## Jdokan (Mar 4, 2009)

When dealing with a criminal we subject ourselves to acting like one....deal the blows that are needed and move on as they would hopefully not getting caught or attracting attention....AND if we are caught then like them throw ourselves at the courts mercy...
:BSmeter:

Kidding...Hopefully we never have to know the answers....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> You are forgetting a couple of things.  First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right.



Absolutely correct.  You can be arrested, you can be sued.  I have always said, here and elsewhere, that if you think you can defend yourself with deadly force and walk away without your life becoming significantly more complex, you're fooling yourself.  So I agree with you.  However, in this thread, I have been stating what the law says, not what the consequences are of defending yourself with deadly force.



> Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test.  Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did?  That is always a big gamble.



The reasonable person test is crucial, yes.  In Michigan, it is now a _'rebuttable presumption'_. Basically, that means that the investigators must presume that the person who uses deadly force in self defense has a _'honest and reasonable'_ belief so long as the other factors for using deadly force in self-defense are met.

It is no longer a 'test' in Michigan, it is a presumption.  That's the law.  It does not mean that a prosecutor can't challenge it, but it's their burden to prove.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-951

 780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.



> Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.



No, sir, that it not the law.  The law is here:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-309-of-2006

SELF-DEFENSE ACT
Act 309 of 2006
AN ACT to clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others.
History: 2006, Act 309, Eff. Oct. 1, 2006

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-972



> 1) A person has the right under *certain circumstances*.  If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).
> 
> 2) Judge the defendant's conduct according to how circumstances appeared at the time they acted.
> 
> ...



All true - but not a law cite.  And you left out (intentional?) the last bit:



> _In Michigan, a Prosecutor has the burden of disproving a defendant's self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. _



That's kind of important, don't you think?

But you are conflating two definitions.  The first is self-defense when the victim has a reasonable and honest belief that their life is in immediate danger, and the second is self-defense when the victim does NOT believe their life is in danger.  You are quoting from the prosecutor's manual (not the law) from the SECOND instance, not the first.  And I have been speaking only of the first.

_"Degree of force"_ does not apply if you reasonable and honestly feel your life is in danger.  I'm sorry, you're incorrect.



> That is why cops will tell you that you can be raked over the coals.  You got the bad guy giving a completely different story about what happened and he has the broken arm.  Is that going to be reasonable?  Depends on what the jury thinks.



The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  But can it happen?  Yes, absolutely.  If I am defending my life - and there is no other reason I'd be defending myself with violence - I don't care as much about that as I do about SAVING MY LIFE.



> Again, you are going to be spending lots of money to prove otherwise.



Money, I can get.  A second life, not so much.



> I know our prosecutor looks at "equal force" as big factor in prosecution of these cases, that is another reason why police will tell you these things, it isn't rumors it is how things are dealt with legally on the other end.



Yes, it is, because you are incorrect.  I don't know how many more ways I can explain this.

If you are reasonable and honestly in fear FOR YOUR LIFE, you are justified to use deadly force or other than deadly force to defend yourself, according to the law of Michigan.

Your quotes are not law cites, they are from a prosecutor's manual.  That's not the law. And they are not even about _'life-threatening'_ self-defense, they are about non-life-threatening self-defense, so you're quoting the wrong part of the prosecuting attorney's handbook.

Several people keep arguing with me about things I did not say.  Why?  I have never advocated that people go around killing anyone who assaults them.  I have stated what the law says, and urged them to check their own laws.  Apparently, people are completely incapable of looking up their own criminal code, because they keep posting snippets of non-law procedure, rumor, and things they heard from some guy down the block as if it were law.  You can't make up the law - it is written down, I suggest looking it up and reading it.

I likewise have said that anyone who engages in deadly force in defense of their own life is not going to have a happy day, even if they survive.  That's the way it goes.  I would expect to have to hire a lawyer and I would expect to have to speak to a prosecuting attorney in depth about the conditions surrounding the case.

I also have not given the bizarre non-self-defense circumstances that others have been quoting here.  The quotes are all quite correct, but they prove my own point - if you don't know what self-defense is, you might have a problem claiming it.

I'm sorry, guys.  I don't mean to go on and on, and I certainly don't intend to make anyone mad, but you are wrong.  You have to look up and read the actual law.  It is very clear and easy to read.  If it is not a cite to case law or public law, it is not law, period.


----------



## Thesemindz (Mar 4, 2009)

So I looked up the law here in Missouri.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm

Basically, you can defend yourself with force, or commit what would otherwise be a crime if, "according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality," you feel that such is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or another.

A person is permitted to use deadly force if, 



> (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony


 
which has been ruled to include rape, and kidnapping.

You do not have a duty to retreat, so long as you are lawfully aloud to be where you are.

Something else I learned was that private citizens have the right to use force, even deadly force, to arrest or prevent the escape of a person who you both BELIEVE has committed a crime, and who has ACTUALLY committed a crime, depending on the crime in question. The distinction is important, if you think they've done something, but you're wrong, you can't use it as a defense.

The law also says it is the defendant's responsibility to introduce the claim of self defense in court.

It also states that if you are sued in civil court, and you can prove self defense, 



> 2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.


 
All pretty interesting stuff.


-Rob


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Something else I learned was that private citizens have the right to use force, even deadly force, to arrest or prevent the escape of a person who you both BELIEVE has committed a crime, and who has ACTUALLY committed a crime, depending on the crime in question. The distinction is important, if you think they've done something, but you're wrong, you can't use it as a defense.



Ah, I remember that fondly.  When I took ConLaw classes in Colorado, so many years ago, one of my profs used to tell us about this - I think it is in Colorado law as well as Missouri, or something like it.  He said that private citizens essentially have the same powers of arrest as police officers, only they mostly don't know it.  No, they can't drive police cars or pull over traffic or write speeding tickets, but they can effect an arrest as much as a police officer can.

However, as you stated - police officers have a big shield, and I don't mean their badge - from civil liability.  Private citizens do not.  So if you as a citizen decide to 'arrest' someone - or if you believe you have witnessed a felony and you decided to use force to stop it - you are on the hook to defend your actions, and if you're wrong, brother you are going to wish you had not done that.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your statements.  It is good to know what the actual law is where you live.  And it is true, what others have been warning - it is hardly a license to kill. If you ever have to use it, well, prepare for a big legal bill and an unhappy few months-to-years ahead.  But it beats being dead.


----------



## Matt (Mar 4, 2009)

MJS said:


> My apologies.  I was speaking more of what it looks like on the surface.  If you were to look at TaiChi it gives the soft, fluid impression from the start.  Compare that to a Kenpo technique, and the differences should be obvious.
> 
> On a side note, a few guys from my Kenpo school study TaiChi.  Its amazing working with them when they're doing a Kenpo or Arnis technique, as you can see and feel some subtle differences in application.



It certainly helped me a lot. I was just being a tiny bit cheeky too, though. 

Matt


----------



## FeralKenpo (Mar 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> ...But it beats being dead.



Most important thing to know!


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So I looked up the law here in Missouri.
> 
> http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c563.htm
> 
> Basically, you can defend yourself with force, or commit what would otherwise be a crime if, "according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality," you feel that such is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or another.


 
The problem I am having here, is that important parts of these cases and statutes are being overlooked. The statute says: "A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and _*to the extent*_ he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person."

What is snuck in there, almost unnoticed, is the qualification "to the extent." It is saying that you can use the amount of force a reasonable person situated in your situation would use to defend yourself. This reasonable man standard is a legal fiction because he always does the right thing in any situation. An ordinary person would talk on the cell phone, mess with the radio, eat, etc. while driving in the rain. But Mr. Reasonable would not. So, if you get in a car accident, they apply the same standard, i.e. would a reasonable person have done what you did? So, the question as if relates to the jury/judge's evaluation is essentially, would the most prudent and cautious human being have believed was amount of force that was necessary.

Here are a fair number of cases addressing the question of whether the force was excessive: _Chillicothe v. Knight_ (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 544, 550, 599 N.E.2d 871 ("To establish self-defense in a nondeadly-force case, one may use such force as the circumstances require in order to defend against danger which one has good reason to apprehend."); _Martin v. Central Ohio Transit Auth._ (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 83, 93, 590 N.E.2d 411 ("The force used to defend must be objectively necessary and reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the danger apprehended."); _State v. Depew,_ 4th Dist. No. 00CA2562, 2002-Ohio-6158, at ¶28 ("[O]ne may use such force as the circumstances require to protect oneself against such danger as one has good reason to apprehend."); _In re Morton,_ 7th Dist. No. 01-BA-29, 2002-Ohio-2648, at ¶22, quoting _State v. Weston_ (July 16, 1999), 4th Dist. No. 97CA31 ("Self-defense is not available, `if the force is so grossly disproportionate to her apparent danger as to show revenge or an evil purpose to injure her assailant.'"). 

It was also suggested that when some thug attacks you his intent is to kill you. The UCR data does not support that. Aggravated assault accounted for 60.8 percent of violent crimes, the highest number of violent crimes reported to law enforcement. Robbery comprised 31.6 percent and forcible rape accounted for 6.4 percent. Murder accounted for 1.2 percent of estimated violent crimes in 2007.

The data also shows that about half of the murders were committed by someone the victim knew, and of the known factors, it was most likely to happen after and argument. (Having an argument was the mostly likely predictor of homicide, based on the types of data collected.) And about half of them were not preceded by a felony. In fact, felony property related offenses where only present in about 10% of the cases. So, chances are quite likely the attacker trying to rob you or steal from you doesn't usually intend to kill you (unless maybe you know them and argued with them first).

The UCR data demonstrates why the law is the way that it is. Out of the millions of crimes reported every year, your chance of being murdered is far less than 1%. And when you factor out certain types of offenders, you chances are pretty small.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

SL4Drew:

I am not going to pick apart your last post, it's way too boring for me, and that would make it mind numbingly tedious for readers.  I will merely say that you are repeating yourself, and you continue to commit the same basic error.  You quote cites with an emphasis on cases where 'deadly force' was not justified and then attempt to conflate them with self-defense where deadly force is justified.  They are not the same.

Then you use UCR data to point out that most violent don't end in murder.  Duh.  That does not mean that a reasonable and prudent man would not believe his life was in jeopardy when attacked by a violent criminal.  Sorry, it doesn't work like that.  It's not the outcome, it is what you reasonably believe will be the outcome, that matters in self-defense.

I have never been attacked by a mugger or a crazed person or anything of the sort.  I hope never to be.  However, I can easily imagine that if such a situation ever occurs to me, I will be reasonably in fear of my life.  Your 'to the extent' and UCR quotes notwithstanding, if I am reasonably and honestly in fear of my life, deadly force is authorized as a self-defense measure, and there is no 'yardstick' of force applied - end of story.

You sir, are wrong, and you really ought to learn when to stand down.  You're outmatched.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> With respect, I disagree with your statements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I agree with all that you have said, assuming a life or death situation.  I don't believe that all situations in which you must defend yourself are life or death.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the first example you gave, of a purse-snatching, the law regarding self-defense might not even apply - at least in Michigan, a person has to be _reasonably and honestly in fear for their own life or safety_, not protecting their purse or shopping bag. A person MIGHT be in fear of their life as well, depending on the circumstances, but it isn't black-and-white.
> 
> I think any disagreement we may have will be based on whether you are talking about an ethical duty or a legal duty.
> 
> ...


 
In Louisiana, if someone feels threatened, then they have been assaulted and have the legal right to defend themselves.  What form that defense takes is the issue most often fought out in court.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> In Louisiana, if someone feels threatened, then they have been assaulted and have the legal right to defend themselves.  What form that defense takes is the issue most often fought out in court.



People have a right to defend themselves in every state, that I am aware of.  There is a difference between defending yourself when you are attacked but do not feel your life is in danger and when you are attacked and do feel your life is in danger.  That is what SL4Dave and I have been arguing over.

If you do not feel your life is in danger, then your ability to respond with force may be tempered by law - meaning you have to use 'appropriate force' and cannot simply kill or maim the person assaulting you.

If you do feel your life is in danger, in very general terms, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.  There is no prohibition on the amount or type of force you may use.

One must know what the difference is between being reasonably and honestly in fear of one's life or simply wishing to defend oneself against assault that one does NOT believe threatens one's life.  

Personally, since I do not hang around in bars or go places where I am likely to be confronted by simple drunken, stoned, or crazy belligerents, I cannot imagine a situation in which I would be attacked where I would not be reasonably in fear of my life - but I suppose it could happen.  If so, I would not be justified in using lethal force, and my response would have to be tempered to an 'appropriate level' as well.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> SL4Drew:
> 
> Then you use UCR data to point out that most violent don't end in murder. Duh.


.


Bill Mattocks said:


> One must know what the difference is between being reasonably and honestly in fear of one's life or simply wishing to defend oneself against assault that one does NOT believe threatens one's life.


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know what a 'pedestrian attack' is. Some guy randomly attacks me and does NOT want to kill me? I am 48 years old and that has never happened to me. I cannot imagine any circumstances under which it would.
> 
> If I am ever attacked on the street, I have no reason to believe it is anything EXCEPT an attack on my life. It would STUPID of me to assume otherwise.


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not care what the attacker's intent is. I'm under attack. I will assume he intends to kill me. I will also assume his skill is greater than mine, so I will use everything I have to defeat him. I will attempt to avoid harming others only in the sense that I always aim center mass. As to legalities, I would presume that I am fighting only because I have been attacked and I am reasonably in fear of my life. I can think of no other reason I'd be fighting. If so, I have no fear of legal consequences. My life is my first priority, the rest can wait. Once the need to defend one's life is upon them, I think the only responsibility is to survive. How that is done is really of no consequence.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 5, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> You are forgetting a couple of things. First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right. Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did? That is always a big gamble. Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (only dealing with non-lethal) notice that you still have to defend this in court and the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.
> 
> 1) A person has the right under *certain circumstances*. If a person acts in lawful defense, the actions are justified and person is not guilty of said crime (depending on injury could be simple A&B to felonious assault).
> 
> ...


 
I am glad to see Michigan is representing.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Mar 5, 2009)

two things:

Im have trouble locating the laws for KY, can some one help

second i found this article while searching for them

B


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 5, 2009)

Many of these issues are not black letter law; they come from the common law.  You may not be able to find a law about defending yourself in the code books.  You may find something in the Rules of the court, but that's not guaranteed.

Self defense is not a law you point to and say "this code section says I was OK" as a general rule; it's a claim or defense of justification against a criminal charge or civil tort.  I'm going to stick with the criminal side because that's what I'm more familiar with.  With a claim of self defense, the defendant is essentially saying that "yes, I committed an assault/malicious wounding/homicide -- but I had a good reason, 'cause he attacked me."  In weighing this claim, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will assess several different factors, including the reasonableness of the harm you inflicted in comparison to the attack.  Generally, to justify lethal force (that force which can be reasonably expected to cause death or grievous bodily injury), you must be in expectation of the same.  To justify lesser force, the general rule is that it must be appropriate to the attack; you can't club someone attacking you with a feather pillow.

This assessment is not a rigorous "tit-for-tat" comparison; neither an ordinary citizen nor a police officer is required to use EXACTLY the same force or make EXACTLY the right choice in techniques.  The demand is only that it, in the eyes of a reasonable person, be more or less on the same scale.  Which returns us to the original topic...   Within the scope of the various Kenpo self defense techniques, you have a continuum.  You don't have to take the technique all the way to the end; you can stop it anywhere within the set where you've accomplished your goal.  Even though the technique carries through to an eye gouge and neck break, you don't have to go all the way to the end.   You may also wish to review this thread: 			  *Are You Supposed To Finish Techniques?*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Many of these issues are not black letter law; they come from the common law.  You may not be able to find a law about defending yourself in the code books.  You may find something in the Rules of the court, but that's not guaranteed.



To be charged with a crime, it must be encoded in law.  There is no such thing as being arrested for responding with too much force in self defense unless there is a specific law that defines what 'too much force' is and is not.  The law itself may be mushy ('reasonable man' standard, etc), but it must exist.  You cannot be prosecuted for a law that does not exist.

And self-defense statutes generally exist.  Both 'hearth and home' statutes and personal self-defense statutes.  This is because these are commonly encountered, and homeowners and the NRA and other groups constantly push to have them amended this way or that.

What is not likely to be encoded in law is what the exact meaning of 'reasonable' or 'honestly held belief' might be.  Those are open to interpretation by courts, and generally, case law is used with regard to establishing precedent, although courts can rule on a case based on its own merits and thus establish precedent for similar cases in that jurisdiction.



> Self defense is not a law you point to and say "this code section says I was OK" as a general rule; it's a claim or defense of justification against a criminal charge or civil tort.  I'm going to stick with the criminal side because that's what I'm more familiar with.  With a claim of self defense, the defendant is essentially saying that "yes, I committed an assault/malicious wounding/homicide -- but I had a good reason, 'cause he attacked me."  In weighing this claim, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will assess several different factors, including the reasonableness of the harm you inflicted in comparison to the attack.  Generally, to justify lethal force (that force which can be reasonably expected to cause death or grievous bodily injury), you must be in expectation of the same.  To justify lesser force, the general rule is that it must be appropriate to the attack; you can't club someone attacking you with a feather pillow.



Two things:

First, I keep agreeing with the statement that if you are NOT in fear of your life, you are NOT entitled to use lethal force in self-defense (in general).  So I agree with you.  You can't club someone who attacks you with a feather pillow.

Second, the test you mentioned is not the 'level of force used' but rather whether or not the test for self-defense was met, and if so, whether the 'reasonably in fear of one's life' was met.   The 'level of force' consideration would not be part of the deliberations unless the test for self-defense was met, but the test for 'in fear of one's life' was not.



> This assessment is not a rigorous "tit-for-tat" comparison; neither an ordinary citizen nor a police officer is required to use EXACTLY the same force or make EXACTLY the right choice in techniques.  The demand is only that it, in the eyes of a reasonable person, be more or less on the same scale.



Again, that is true ONLY if the self-defense test is met, but the 'in fear for life' test is not.



> Which returns us to the original topic...   Within the scope of the various Kenpo self defense techniques, you have a continuum.  You don't have to take the technique all the way to the end; you can stop it anywhere within the set where you've accomplished your goal.  Even though the technique carries through to an eye gouge and neck break, you don't have to go all the way to the end.



If a person is authorized to defend themselves, and they are reasonably in fear of their lives, the choice they make with regard to what technique to use is of course entirely up to them.  However, in general terms, if a person is authorized to defend themselves with deadly force, the selection they make is not going to be reviewed by investigators with regard to 'level of force'.  

To sum up - with regard to self-defense where deadly force is authorized - the choice of response level is up to the victim.  The victim's use of force is not likely to be questioned, but rather whether the victim was 'reasonably in fear of their life'.  



> You may also wish to review this thread:               *Are You Supposed To Finish Techniques?*


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you do not feel your life is in danger, then your ability to respond with force may be tempered by law - meaning you have to use 'appropriate force' and cannot simply kill or maim the person assaulting you.
> 
> If you do feel your life is in danger, in very general terms, you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. There is no prohibition on the amount or type of force you may use.
> 
> One must know what the difference is between being reasonably and honestly in fear of one's life or simply wishing to defend oneself against assault that one does NOT believe threatens one's life.


 
You seemed to take issue with my own similar opinions when you responded to my first post.  Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> You seemed to take issue with my own similar opinions when you responded to my first post.  Thanks for clarifying.



My apologies if I was unclear.  It was never my intent!  I kind of knocked together this diagram.  Based on Michigan law (could be different in different states), this is the situation.  In the case where self-defense is permitted, but deadly force is not permitted, then absolutely the 'level of force' used in response would be questioned.  In the case where self-defense is permitted and deadly force is permitted, then not.

From a personal standpoint, I would not intentionally try to use a 'less-lethal' response if I was in fear of my life.  I would use the technique I thought most likely to end the fight immediately and preserve my own life.  I do not feel I have a moral obligation to do the least amount of harm possible to the attacker, and I certainly would not have a legal obligation to do so.  But if people feel a moral or ethical need to 'tone down' their response in cases where deadly force is permitted, then so be it and good luck to them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

KempoGuy06 said:


> two things:
> 
> Im have trouble locating the laws for KY, can some one help
> 
> ...



The Kentucky statutes are online, but some of them are inexplicably missing:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/CHAPTER.HTM

Here is the bit about self-defense, though.  Pretty standard stuff:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/050.PDF



> _
> 503.050 Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.
> 
> (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.
> ...



With regard to the link you posted, that's an interesting case.  However, the case appears to be hinging on the 'duty to retreat' that Kentucky added to the basic self-defense law; I guess recently.  Furthermore, the DA seems to be arguing:


> Prosecutor Craig Williams argued that Borden exceeded justified force when he continued firing after shooting the driver and stopping the Jeep. But Borden&#8217;s defense argued that he did not have to retreat, citing the new law.


So not the 'level' of response, but that the 'right to self-defense' ended when the threat ended - and the DA feels that when the driver was shot, the danger was ended.  Remember, the defendant felt that the danger was that he was going to be run over.  If the Jeep could no longer run him over because the driver was shot and it stopped, it would not be reasonable to believe that it posed a life-endangering threat.

And in the end, it appears the defendant (the victim in the case) was acquitted.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Absolutely correct. You can be arrested, you can be sued. I have always said, here and elsewhere, that if you think you can defend yourself with deadly force and walk away without your life becoming significantly more complex, you're fooling yourself. So I agree with you. However, in this thread, I have been stating what the law says, not what the consequences are of defending yourself with deadly force.
> 
> The reasonable person test is crucial, yes. In Michigan, it is now a _'rebuttable presumption'_. Basically, that means that the investigators must presume that the person who uses deadly force in self defense has a _'honest and reasonable'_ belief so long as the other factors for using deadly force in self-defense are met.
> 
> ...


 
If you are going to debate something with somebody, PLEASE read what was actually said.



> You are forgetting a couple of things. First, you can still be arrested and have to spend lots of money to "prove your innocence" in court even if you are right. Second, it is based on a "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person view the circumstances the same way you did? That is always a big gamble. Here is the law in Michigan to claim self-defense as an alibi for your crime (*only dealing with non-lethal*) notice that you still have to defend this in court and *the prosecutor proves their case to show it was NOT self-defense.
> *


 
I did NOT mix up the two issues. I seperated them quite clearly for when you are actually in fear of your life and just using force because some guy gets in your face at the bar.  I did not leave anything out, I SAID that it is up to the prosecutor to prove their case.  Here is the law.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-780-961 and here is the important part.


> If a prosecutor believes that an individual used deadly force or force other than deadly force that is unjustified under section 2 of the self-defense act, the prosecutor may charge the individual with a crime arising from that use of deadly force or force other than deadly force and shall present evidence to the judge or magistrate at the time of warrant issuance, at the time of any preliminary examination, and at the time of any trial establishing that the individual's actions were not justified under section 2 of the self-defense act.


 
Again, you are charged with the crime of assault (corresponding to the injuries you caused) and you have to prove that what you did was within the law.  Just as I stated before.  You are correct, I did not cite the specific law the first time, but quoted from my police procedural because AGAIN, I was talking about non-deadly force assaults.

I am *NOT *talking about a deadly force assualt and you protecting yourself, nor did I EVER say otherwise.  The original topic was on toning down techniques and having appropriate levels of response (ie: can't crush their throat because they put their hand on my shoudler alone).  My comments are in regards to Joe Citizen having some guy outside a bar come up to him and then get in his face and he has to protect himself.  

I am not wrong, you just did not read my post on what it was addressing.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 5, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> My comments are in regards to Joe Citizen having some guy outside a bar come up to him and then get in his face and he has to protect himself.



Scenario 1: If Joe Citizen does not fear being assaulted, he has no right to 'protect himself' at all.

Scenario 2: If he does fear being assaulted, but does *not* fear being killed, then he has an affirmative defense to defend himself with force other than deadly force.

Scenario 3: If he does fear being assaulted *and* he 'reasonably and honestly' fears for his life, then he has an affirmative defense for defending himself with deadly force.

I cannot imagine how scenario 2 would ever happen to me.  Can you picture such a thing?  I think maybe if Joe goes out looking for fights, maybe.  I don't, so if someone attacks me, I have to presume they're trying to kill me.  For a guy who does not hang around in bars or engage in street fights, that's the only reasonable response.


----------



## MJS (Mar 5, 2009)

A few points:

I wish that someone, probably someone from the SL4 group, would be kind enough to clarify the link that I posted.

I think that all of the legal points are great, however, I think that it is important to know the laws in your respective state.


----------



## Doc (Mar 5, 2009)

MJS said:


> In another thread, this thread from KT was mentioned. While reading a few of those posts, I started thinking about our Kenpo techniques. If we look at them, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye pokes, groin kicks, breaks, stomps, you name it, its probably in a technique.
> 
> Doc commented that if someone has to do those things, then they haven't learned any martial arts skills.  Now, I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with part of this, and hopefully Doc, or another SL4 student will chime in, for the specifics of the way things are done with those techs.
> 
> ...



Out of town. I will get back next week. If I forget drop me a line.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 6, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Scenario 1: If Joe Citizen does not fear being assaulted, he has no right to 'protect himself' at all.
> 
> Scenario 2: If he does fear being assaulted, but does *not* fear being killed, then he has an affirmative defense to defend himself with force other than deadly force.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you for clarifying your response, I understand your intent much better.  Working in LE I do see #2 alot. 

 Joe Citizen is at the local watering hole or bowling alley having a good time with his friends.  Larry Lowlife is having no luck in scoring a babe and is going home alone again.  Larry's next best thing in life is scrapping so he decides to take it out on Joe Citizen who seems to be having too much fun.  Larry approaches Joe and accuses him of eyeballin him and keeps instigating it.  Joe apologizes for any slight that may have occurred and even offers to buy him a beer to make amends.  Larry will have none of this and keeps yelling and threatening Joe.  Joe again states that he wants no trouble and has moved back some to appear non-threatening.  Larry suddenly decides talk is over and steps forward and draws his arm back to throw the punch.  Joe has been training and has been trying to de-escalate this situation, but now knows through his training and experience that an assault is imminent and he has to protect himself.

Another common scenario is a fender-bender or parking lot incident.  You are minding your own business and get into an accident because somebody pulled out in front of you and didn't have time to react (or maybe it is your fault).  Other person just wants to be mad and keeps escalating even though you are trying to de-escalate it.

These are the types of things I train my adult students for.  I agree that if you hang out in a lot of seedy bars you will increase your chances of violence, but it can still happen to everyday people by being in the wrong place.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 6, 2009)

punisher73 said:


> Thank you for clarifying your response, I understand your intent much better.  Working in LE I do see #2 alot.



Thanks, I appreciate the response very much!  I get your point now.  I used to work in LE, and from my point of view, everybody who got into a bar scrap was generally 'mutual combat'.  I guess I can see how it could happen the way you described, that makes sense.  I just haven't seen it myself, but I get your point.  :asian:


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 6, 2009)

For any dweebs (like me), here is an interesting article discussing the application of the laws of self-defense in general and their impact of somewhat predictable cognitive failures at the time of the encounter. http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/documents/SimonsK071007REV1a.pdf

I found interesting because although I have seen similar papers and studies with regard to the use of force by a law enforcement officer or general cognitive failures of the brain under stress, this paper was the first I've seen that addresses some of those same things from a legal perspective, in the context of the law of self-defense.

This is the abstract:

The reasonable person test is often employed in criminal law doctrine as a criterion of cognitive fault: Did the defendant unreasonably fail to appreciate a risk of harm, or unreasonably fail to recognize a legally relevant circumstance element (such as the nonconsent of the victim)? But it is sometimes applied more directly to conduct: Did the defendant depart sufficiently from a standard of reasonable care, e.g. in operating a motor vehicle, that he deserves punishment? A third version of the reasonable person criterion, which has received much less attention, asks what degree of control a reasonable person would have exercised. Many criminal acts occur in highly emotional, stressful, or emergency situations, situations in which it is often both unrealistic and unfair to expect the actor to formulate beliefs about all of the facts relevant to the legality or justifiability of his conduct. A "reasonable degree of self-control" criterion is sometimes the best criterion for embracing these contextual factors.

In self-defense, for example, it is conventional to ask whether the actor believes, and whether a reasonable person would believe, each of the following facts: (a) an aggressor was threatening him with harm, (b) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, (c) his use of force in response would prevent that harm, (d) the level of responsive force he expects to employ would be of a similar level of gravity, (e) if the force was not used, the threatened harm would occur immediately, and (f) no nonviolent or less forceful alternatives were available whereby the threat could be avoided. United States law typically requires an affirmative answer to each of these questions. Yet in many cases, an actor threatened with harm will actually have no beliefs at all about most of these matters. It would be unfair to deny a full defense to all such actors. At the same time, we should still hold such an actor to a normative standard of justifiable behavior. Specifically, this essay suggests that we reformulate the reasonableness criterion and require this type of actor to exercise a reasonable degree of self-control in response to a threat of force.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 6, 2009)

MJS said:


> A few points:
> 
> I wish that someone, probably someone from the SL4 group, would be kind enough to clarify the link that I posted.
> 
> I think that all of the legal points are great, however, I think that it is important to know the laws in your respective state.


 
Doc can certainly shed more light on this.  For my part, I think the early posts by 'Punisher73' did a pretty good job explaining what would be my position.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2009)

Doc said:


> Out of town. I will get back next week. If I forget drop me a line.


 
Just wanted to bump this back up.  Looking forward to your thoughts Doc.


----------



## Doc (Mar 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> Just wanted to bump this back up.  Looking forward to your thoughts Doc.



I teach students body mechanics and reasonable responses to assaults. Students who feel a personal need through circumstance to "maim" do not need my approval or instruction to do so. Poking someone in the eye is something people have when they walk through the door. Ripping, slashing, scratching, biting, stomping, etc are all things that humans will resort to when threatened significantly enough. Put your hand on the infant child of an unskilled mother and see what happens.

It takes more skill not to maim then it does to do so. I was always taught ideally, the more skill you had the less damage you need to inflict to end a confrontation, but that doesn't mean if you "need" to, tat you're unskilled. What it means is, if that's all you have sooner or later you are going to utilize more force than is necessary, because you don't have skill to do otherwise.

"If all you have in your tool kit is a hammer, every problem you face will always look like a nail." - Ed Parker Sr.


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2009)

Doc said:


> I teach students body mechanics and reasonable responses to assaults. Students who feel a personal need through circumstance to "maim" do not need my approval or instruction to do so. Poking someone in the eye is something people have when they walk through the door. Ripping, slashing, scratching, biting, stomping, etc are all things that humans will resort to when threatened significantly enough. Put your hand on the infant child of an unskilled mother and see what happens.


 
Of course, while these skills are a natural, I would say that they'd be twice as effective if they were polished.  How many times have we seen a cardio kickboxing class, where the people in the class, are swinging and kicking away at bags, with little to no form?  I've seen it many times.  Now, fine tune those strikes, and I'd be more willing to say they'd be twice as effective.  

As I said, I don't think that those things are the answer in every situation, but I'm not going to throw them out either and IMO, I don't think anyone else should.



> It takes more skill not to maim then it does to do so. I was always taught ideally, the more skill you had the less damage you need to inflict to end a confrontation, but that doesn't mean if you "need" to, tat you're unskilled. What it means is, if that's all you have sooner or later you are going to utilize more force than is necessary, because you don't have skill to do otherwise.
> 
> "If all you have in your tool kit is a hammer, every problem you face will always look like a nail." - Ed Parker Sr.


 
And this is why, personally, I think that its important to have all our bases covered.  Be able to determine what we need to do, and base our response accordingly.


----------



## Doc (Mar 13, 2009)

MJS said:


> Of course, while these skills are a natural, I would say that they'd be twice as effective if they were polished.  How many times have we seen a cardio kickboxing class, where the people in the class, are swinging and kicking away at bags, with little to no form?  I've seen it many times.  Now, fine tune those strikes, and I'd be more willing to say they'd be twice as effective.



While we essentially agree sir on the base premise, I disagree that there is a strong relationship between "polishing" an uninstinctive roundhouse kick skill, and the natural propensity to use instinctive defense mechanisms under duress, thus my "untrained" reference to a mother protecting her child.

The mechanisms to mechanically refine specific martial function are extremely sophisticated in most cases. The slash, poke, smash, scratch, bite, spit, and stomp of most modern arts are not. 

That is why they are "emphasized" in short duration self-defense courses of a few hours. They are primarily instinctive, and are relatively easy to reinforce over much more difficult skills to acquire. 

It is also, by design, why the methodology was chosen for commercial self defense teaching. Relatively speaking - it's easy. It is also why it is "de-emphasized" in more difficult and passive disciplines like Aikido and  judo, but take  note it is even relatively absent in the more aggressive Jiujitsu, Hapkido, Karate-do arts, etc. as well. They are a result of "stripping down" traditional material for quick effectiveness, over labor and knowledge intensive longer term training.

While its effectiveness has no argument, its ethical applications bare strong scrutiny, and its proponent's students must be reminded that it is they alone who must embrace the consequences of their actions should their use be misplaced in a circumstance. For it is they who will bare the brunt of societies wrath for its social misuse monetarily, emotionally, and possibly even physically. As a public law enforcement officer the bulk of my adult life, I truly understand both sides of the argument, but have also have had a personal hand in incarcerating more than one good guy/gal "defending" themselves inappropriately. 

While for some including its teachers, it's a wild fantasy fueled by many who have never had an actually life and death encounter, who dream of enacting personal justice on those who would violate them. 

While the position is noble, and I stand in that line myself, personal justice and redemption must be tempered by ethical restraint, and hopefully bolstered by the possession of sufficient skill and ability to moderate the response appropriately to the circumstance. If one does not have that ability, than in our modern society, their training is deficient until they can sir.

While many who have never been there will cavalierly spout slogans of "judged by 12 over carried by 6," it is not so cavalier when you factor your own freedom, and the personal wealth of you and your family into the equation. Maybe that's why so many young dumb males gravitate to some arts. They have nothing to lose but their own freedom, while the more mature stop and think of the grave consequences.


----------



## Stix (Mar 14, 2009)

MJS said:


> A few points:
> 
> I wish that someone, probably someone from the SL4 group, would be kind enough to clarify the link that I posted.
> 
> I think that all of the legal points are great, however, I think that it is important to know the laws in your respective state.


 

Regarding training (from my SL4 perspective), if I train every day to gouge someone's eyes out, then if someone takes a swing at me I will have to override that muscle memory to employ reasonable force. I, of course, don't assume that every attack will be an attempt to kill me, so I don't want my automatic response to be maiming or killing actions. If the circumstances dictate escalation, then I will adjust accordingly, and do whatever it takes.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 14, 2009)

Doc said:


> While the position is noble, and I stand in that line myself, personal justice and redemption must be tempered by ethical restraint, and hopefully bolstered by the possession of sufficient skill and ability to moderate the response appropriately to the circumstance. If one does not have that ability, than in our modern society, their training is deficient until they can sir.


 
This, in particular, is worthy of a repeat.  Very eloquently stated, sir.


----------



## Doc (Mar 14, 2009)

KenpoDave said:


> This, in particular, is worthy of a repeat.  Very eloquently stated, sir.



Or as Lee Marvin said to Charles Bronson in the Dirty Dozen, "You only made one mistake. You let them see you do it."


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2009)

Stix said:


> Regarding training (from my SL4 perspective), if I train every day to gouge someone's eyes out, then if someone takes a swing at me I will have to override that muscle memory to employ reasonable force. I, of course, don't assume that every attack will be an attempt to kill me, so I don't want my automatic response to be maiming or killing actions. If the circumstances dictate escalation, then I will adjust accordingly, and do whatever it takes.


 
This is why I suggested that its important to be able to adapt to the situation.  Some may call for more force than others.


----------



## Doc (Mar 16, 2009)

MJS said:


> This is why I suggested that its important to be able to adapt to the situation.  Some may call for more force than others.



We're on the same page sir, it just seems so many lean heavily in one direction, they need to be reminded of what they are training for. If defending yourself ultimately destroys you and your family's life because you lacked the skill to modulate your response, it serves no purpose. 

Especially when you factor in most people never have physical confrontations after adulthood their entire life, and of the small percentage that do, even than less than 1% are actually life and death. People need to realize that perhaps they are not as skilled as they think they are if all they can do is attack soft tissue with blunt force. Everyone is born with some level of that skill, so where is all this training to justify these lofty ranks and titles?


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2009)

Doc said:


> While we essentially agree sir on the base premise, I disagree that there is a strong relationship between "polishing" an uninstinctive roundhouse kick skill, and the natural propensity to use instinctive defense mechanisms under duress, thus my "untrained" reference to a mother protecting her child.


 
I was just thinking that while something may be an 'instinct' IMO, it may be even more effective if instead of just swinging wildly, the strikes be more finetuned.  Woman A just swinging her hands with no rhyme or reason, vs Woman B who knew where to hit, how to form the hand in the correct position for whatever strike is being thrown to avoid injury.



> The mechanisms to mechanically refine specific martial function are extremely sophisticated in most cases. The slash, poke, smash, scratch, bite, spit, and stomp of most modern arts are not.
> 
> That is why they are "emphasized" in short duration self-defense courses of a few hours. They are primarily instinctive, and are relatively easy to reinforce over much more difficult skills to acquire.
> 
> ...


 
A few questions:

1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art.  So, are these people wrong?  Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side?  Isn't this setting people up to fail?  I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training?  I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why.  That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack?  Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

3) I came across this recent post.  Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well.  Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation?  Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong?  I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.

As far as the 'judged by 12, carried by 6' comment goes....I'm going to base my response on the situation.  If some guy follows me to the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off in traffic, and starts to aggressively move towards me, fists clenched, face red, I don't think that is the time to talk.  I don't think that is the time to get in the car and try to leave, and the reasons should be obvious.  A physical assault is about to take place, and I'm in fear of my life, my safety, the safety of anyone with me, so if that means an elbow to the face and a kick to the groin, then yes, your Honor, I was in fear for my life and that is what I did.  

I started a thread in the Gen. Sd section titled, "The fear of defending yourself."  IMHO, the #1 reason why people are afraid to defend themselves is because of a lawsuit.  Of course, for someone to think that I'm going to stand idle, after years of training, and be someones punching bag, frankly, I don't really care what someone thinks, I'm going to defend myself.  Any juror with half a brain, were they in the same situation, should defend themselves as well and see the fact that I was in fear.


----------



## Doc (Mar 17, 2009)

MJS said:


> I was just thinking that while something may be an 'instinct' IMO, it may be even more effective if instead of just swinging wildly, the strikes be more finetuned.  Woman A just swinging her hands with no rhyme or reason, vs Woman B who knew where to hit, how to form the hand in the correct position for whatever strike is being thrown to avoid injury.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crap I posted a lengthy response and now its not here. crap.


----------



## MJS (Mar 17, 2009)

Doc said:


> Crap I posted a lengthy response and now its not here. crap.


 
Thats happened to me many times.  It sucks.  Anytime I am posting something long, I've begun to copy it before hitting send.  Eases the pain a bit if the system loses it.

I would however, like to hear your thoughts though, if you don't mind re-typing.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 17, 2009)

MJS said:


> 1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....


 
I'll share with you what I think. If you consider that a lot of people out there have never had a punch thrown in anger at them, there are many people who will never be in a scrape, let alone a serious one. These are the kind of people that don't have thugs for friends and don't hang out in places where fighting is somewhat common. In my experience, many of these people come into Kenpo (or the martial arts more generally) for insurance against a violent encounter. So, their stated goal is to do Kenpo for self-defense. At least at first, they aren't interest in self-mastery, developing martial skill, or piercing the veil of the 'secrets.' They just want to deal with the dude that may want to hurt them.

In a commercial environment, this has a few consequences. And remember at its core, Ed Parker's Kenpo was almost always a commercial martial art. If you tell this guy, "do this form for 2-3 years, and then I'll start to show you applications," I doubt you'll keep them for very long. They want to learn to defend themselves now. So, this drives the information you have to present to them if you want to keep them. 

Second, these people also tend to be adults with other things going on in their lives, wives, kids, jobs, social obligations, etc. Many of these people don't want to commit a lot of time to being on the floor. The "Tracy's model" of 1/2 hour privates tends to exploit this quite well. So, what can you teach people willing to commit to an hour or less a week of training (with _maybe_ a little self-directed study on their time)? It has to be information stripped down to its basic (brutal) effectiveness. As a result, I wouldn't say he was setting his students up for failure because in the parameters he was working with he probably made the best choices for them and himself.

And basic 'self-defense' is easy to teach and lends it self to commercial enterprise. You have customers unaccustomed to violence, who want to learn to defend themselves in the shortest time possible. And you have rent to pay, a mortgage, loan payments, bills, and so on. Add to that, in the allotted time, you can't make all the corrections you may want, you can't emphasize basics to level they are most likely needed, and you can't get too 'deep.' So, not only is it easy to learn, but it then is easy to teach. 

Consider that to maximize your profit in a commercial enterprise, you have to have other teachers and/or schools. With a relatively easy to teach and to learn curriculum, you can have assistant instructors that are one belt ahead of their students and you can sell franchises to a guy that never did martial arts before. Ed Parker and the Tracys were brilliant in giving the public what they wanted and making a bundle of cash while doing it.

I think by the point in the 70's and 80's where the real problem with this strategy became apparent, i.e. high ranking people that came up in the commercial vehicle and only knew 'self-defense', what were you going to do about it? The system and the model has its own inertia, and even if Mr. Parker just up and quit teaching, his commercial system would continue. So, he kept selling people what they knew and wanted. You can't fully blame him, as the customer is always right. And almost everyone got into Kenpo because of his commercial system. What he did with the IKKA and his system is unparalleled in the martial arts.



MJS said:


> 2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?


 
When you train under a person of substantial knowledge, like Doc, it becomes apparent pretty fast that they are plenty of ways to address a situation without maiming the guy. You can of course fall to that if you need to, but that isn't the purpose of the training. Doc has developed the material to emphasize first surviving the assault. If you can do that successfully, then you have the ability to modulate your retaliation. You can move into a control manipulation, you can strike, or if the situation warranted it, you could attempt to de-escalate it. With a deep bag of tricks, you have a lot options, once you are in control of the situation.



MJS said:


> As far as the 'judged by 12, carried by 6' comment goes....I'm going to base my response on the situation. If some guy follows me to the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off in traffic, and starts to aggressively move towards me, fists clenched, face red, I don't think that is the time to talk.


 
Maybe, maybe not. I think rather than be certain ahead of time, it is best to follow your intuition at the time. That being said, consider Mr. Parker's menu of death story. The guy wanted to fight with him really bad till he psyched him out. Or I've heard a couple stories of Jimmy Woo 'freezing a guy's heart' with a look. Also consider, just because it looks like he wants to trade punches with you now, doesn't mean if things are going bad he isn't going to pull out a knife and stick you. Maybe if you just take the blame and apologize, he'll get back in the car after just posturing. And he'll have just avoided making a really big mistake.

I am not advocating you second guess your self during a conflict, but consider not every potentially violent conflict has to end in violence. But if that is your mindset, then that's what'll you see and that's what you'll do. 

I don't think that is the time to get in the car and try to leave, and the reasons should be obvious. A physical assault is about to take place, and I'm in fear of my life, my safety, the safety of anyone with me, so if that means an elbow to the face and a kick to the groin, then yes, your Honor, I was in fear for my life and that is what I did. 



MJS said:


> I started a thread in the Gen. Sd section titled, "The fear of defending yourself." IMHO, the #1 reason why people are afraid to defend themselves is because of a lawsuit. Of course, for someone to think that I'm going to stand idle, after years of training, and be someones punching bag, frankly, I don't really care what someone thinks, I'm going to defend myself. Any juror with half a brain, were they in the same situation, should defend themselves as well and see the fact that I was in fear.


 
I disagree. I can't think of an assault I have heard of where the victim say, "I would of defended myself, but I was afraid of being sued or going to jail." The bottom line is most people aren't able to handle violence. Lt. Col. Grossman talks a lot about this, and I agree with what he says on the subject. He calls it a universal phobia of human-to-human violence. Call it whatever you want, but the fight or flight response is pretty powerful. Untrained people usually don't handle it well and often fail to act. Under that kind of stress you may lose fine motor control, empty your bowels, stutter, get tunnel vision, lose the ability to think rationally, and so on. Your brain won't be thinking about lawsuits when faced with a real threat to your person. He, like so many before him, recognize that training will allow most people to operate under that kind of stress. 

And because you fall to your level of training, it is important that you have solid training. I believe part of the responsibility of the instructor is to provide the training necessary for the student to overcome the adrenaline dump and other associated physiological responses so they are able to survive an assault. That is why the 'Redman' training is usually a part of a woman's self-defense class. 

Also, because you sink to your training, if you train to maim someone, that is going to be your instinctual response. Since it is the case that the student will reflexively do those things which may be inappropriate for something like a shove, it is incumbent upon teachers not to inculcate inappropriate responses into the students.  The training floor (or the mind) the proper place to consider your moral, legal, and ethical obligations, rather than ignore them, then act reflexively in a way that you may not truly be comfortable with.


----------



## KenpoDave (Mar 17, 2009)

MJS said:


> 1) It seems to me, and if you'd rather not answer this on a public forum, please feel free to PM me, but every other Kenpo inst. that I see is teaching the same thing....the brutal aspect of the art. So, are these people wrong? Did Mr. Parker, due to the need from the majority of people seeking training, teach the brutal aspect because those folks didn't want to train hard, put in the time to learn the softer side? Isn't this setting people up to fail? I mean, if everyone is running around doing the brutal stuff, well....


 
You have to have a starting point.  People typically come in wanting effective self defense, and in the beginning, the basic, brutal stuff is the way to go.  Unfortunately, most people don't stick around long enough to get much beyond that.  What's the saying..."1 in 1,000 will make black belt?"  Forget black belt, how many yellow belt promotions have you given vs. any other belt?  We always seem to be teaching more beginners than anything else.

I like this poker analogy.  As a teacher, I like to give my students the royal flush of self defense skills.  Once they have it, teaching them to bluff is easy.  Think about it.  In a card game, the guy with the really awesome hand rarely has to show it.  Nobody calls the "bluff."




> 2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?


 
I am not against brutal.  I am for being able to choose.  I also believe that it is easier to tone it down on the fly than to escalate.  Since you fall to the level of your training, the assumption that you might rise with the necessary force continuum is flawed.  I'd rather start at the top.  From my limited real life experience, I have found that if I can project the intent of death at the beginning, rarely do I have to use even passive force.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 18, 2009)

Personally, I always go for the brutal. It's like therapy. Kidding.

In actuality, as a teacher of behavior conduct disorder kids, I find myself using restraints in most of the "altercations" I am involved with. I'm either breaking up fights, or having to "escort" someone somewhere against their will (sometimes even holding them while they are being handcuffed). Violence is almost never directed towards me in those situations.

Were I to be attacked in the street, however, I'm going for it to the max. I am not going to assume that he doesn't have friends waiting to help him out, or a weapon hidden that he may get desperate enough to take out if things aren't going his way. If someone attacks me in the street, I'm going to assume my life is in danger and act accordingly. Therefore, that's how we train in Kajukenbo.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> I'll share with you what I think. If you consider that a lot of people out there have never had a punch thrown in anger at them, there are many people who will never be in a scrape, let alone a serious one. These are the kind of people that don't have thugs for friends and don't hang out in places where fighting is somewhat common. In my experience, many of these people come into Kenpo (or the martial arts more generally) for insurance against a violent encounter. So, their stated goal is to do Kenpo for self-defense. At least at first, they aren't interest in self-mastery, developing martial skill, or piercing the veil of the 'secrets.' They just want to deal with the dude that may want to hurt them.


 
So, are you saying that someone can't develop those things you mention if their primary goal is self defense?  Or do you feel that those things come afterwards?



> In a commercial environment, this has a few consequences. And remember at its core, Ed Parker's Kenpo was almost always a commercial martial art. If you tell this guy, "do this form for 2-3 years, and then I'll start to show you applications," I doubt you'll keep them for very long. They want to learn to defend themselves now. So, this drives the information you have to present to them if you want to keep them.


 
True.  Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this:  I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this.  So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school?  Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?  



> Second, these people also tend to be adults with other things going on in their lives, wives, kids, jobs, social obligations, etc. Many of these people don't want to commit a lot of time to being on the floor. The "Tracy's model" of 1/2 hour privates tends to exploit this quite well. So, what can you teach people willing to commit to an hour or less a week of training (with _maybe_ a little self-directed study on their time)? It has to be information stripped down to its basic (brutal) effectiveness. As a result, I wouldn't say he was setting his students up for failure because in the parameters he was working with he probably made the best choices for them and himself.


 
Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall.  So, if he does have those types of people, what keeps them coming back?  I don't know the schedules of every student that trains with him, so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, I'd have to assume that he isn't teaching them stripped info.  Would you say that the others that trained under Parker, ie: Tatum, Palanzo, etc., were just interested in the commercial, bare bones material or were they interested in what was taught to Doc?  I say this, because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he (Doc) got something that nobody else did.



> And basic 'self-defense' is easy to teach and lends it self to commercial enterprise. You have customers unaccustomed to violence, who want to learn to defend themselves in the shortest time possible. And you have rent to pay, a mortgage, loan payments, bills, and so on. Add to that, in the allotted time, you can't make all the corrections you may want, you can't emphasize basics to level they are most likely needed, and you can't get too 'deep.' So, not only is it easy to learn, but it then is easy to teach.


 
Ok. 



> Consider that to maximize your profit in a commercial enterprise, you have to have other teachers and/or schools. With a relatively easy to teach and to learn curriculum, you can have assistant instructors that are one belt ahead of their students and you can sell franchises to a guy that never did martial arts before. Ed Parker and the Tracys were brilliant in giving the public what they wanted and making a bundle of cash while doing it.
> 
> I think by the point in the 70's and 80's where the real problem with this strategy became apparent, i.e. high ranking people that came up in the commercial vehicle and only knew 'self-defense', what were you going to do about it? The system and the model has its own inertia, and even if Mr. Parker just up and quit teaching, his commercial system would continue. So, he kept selling people what they knew and wanted. You can't fully blame him, as the customer is always right. And almost everyone got into Kenpo because of his commercial system. What he did with the IKKA and his system is unparalleled in the martial arts.


 
Ok 







> When you train under a person of substantial knowledge, like Doc, it becomes apparent pretty fast that they are plenty of ways to address a situation without maiming the guy. You can of course fall to that if you need to, but that isn't the purpose of the training. Doc has developed the material to emphasize first surviving the assault. If you can do that successfully, then you have the ability to modulate your retaliation. You can move into a control manipulation, you can strike, or if the situation warranted it, you could attempt to de-escalate it. With a deep bag of tricks, you have a lot options, once you are in control of the situation.


 
I havent been around as many Kenpo higher ups as you or some others probably have, so let me ask this:  Is anyone else teaching this method?





> Maybe, maybe not. I think rather than be certain ahead of time, it is best to follow your intuition at the time. That being said, consider Mr. Parker's menu of death story. The guy wanted to fight with him really bad till he psyched him out. Or I've heard a couple stories of Jimmy Woo 'freezing a guy's heart' with a look. Also consider, just because it looks like he wants to trade punches with you now, doesn't mean if things are going bad he isn't going to pull out a knife and stick you. Maybe if you just take the blame and apologize, he'll get back in the car after just posturing. And he'll have just avoided making a really big mistake.
> 
> I am not advocating you second guess your self during a conflict, but consider not every potentially violent conflict has to end in violence. But if that is your mindset, then that's what'll you see and that's what you'll do.


 
Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first.  However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left?  Keep talking?  Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off?  I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance.  Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat.  Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there.  If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.  






> I disagree. I can't think of an assault I have heard of where the victim say, "I would of defended myself, but I was afraid of being sued or going to jail." The bottom line is most people aren't able to handle violence. Lt. Col. Grossman talks a lot about this, and I agree with what he says on the subject. He calls it a universal phobia of human-to-human violence. Call it whatever you want, but the fight or flight response is pretty powerful. Untrained people usually don't handle it well and often fail to act. Under that kind of stress you may lose fine motor control, empty your bowels, stutter, get tunnel vision, lose the ability to think rationally, and so on. Your brain won't be thinking about lawsuits when faced with a real threat to your person. He, like so many before him, recognize that training will allow most people to operate under that kind of stress.


 
This is why I like to scenario train, to better prepare for things like this. 



> And because you fall to your level of training, it is important that you have solid training. I believe part of the responsibility of the instructor is to provide the training necessary for the student to overcome the adrenaline dump and other associated physiological responses so they are able to survive an assault. That is why the 'Redman' training is usually a part of a woman's self-defense class.


 
See my reply just above this. 



> Also, because you sink to your training, if you train to maim someone, that is going to be your instinctual response. Since it is the case that the student will reflexively do those things which may be inappropriate for something like a shove, it is incumbent upon teachers not to inculcate inappropriate responses into the students. The training floor (or the mind) the proper place to consider your moral, legal, and ethical obligations, rather than ignore them, then act reflexively in a way that you may not truly be comfortable with.


 
Fortunately, my other arts in addition to Kenpo, provide me with a wide variety of things to pick from.   For a simple shove, I can't see breaking the guys arm, but I also dont see anything wrong with a lock, or simply knocking the hand away.  Something like Triggered Salute followed by a lock hardly seems as brutal as an eye shot.  However, my intentions are not to play games either.  If the person isn't getting the hint, well....

In closing, I notice a few parts to my post were overlooked:

2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?

3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.


I almost get the impression that this thread is turning into a discussion on my choices of action.  As I said, if someone thinks that my solutions are wrong, thats fine, and accept that.  However, its only natural for the person who disagrees, to offer up what they do.


----------



## MJS (Mar 18, 2009)

Danjo said:


> Personally, I always go for the brutal. It's like therapy. Kidding.


 
LOL! 



> In actuality, as a teacher of behavior conduct disorder kids, I find myself using restraints in most of the "altercations" I am involved with. I'm either breaking up fights, or having to "escort" someone somewhere against their will (sometimes even holding them while they are being handcuffed). Violence is almost never directed towards me in those situations.


 
I'm in favor of restraints as well.  Of course, there're pros and cons to them, but I still find value in them. 



> Were I to be attacked in the street, however, I'm going for it to the max. I am not going to assume that he doesn't have friends waiting to help him out, or a weapon hidden that he may get desperate enough to take out if things aren't going his way. If someone attacks me in the street, I'm going to assume my life is in danger and act accordingly. Therefore, that's how we train in Kajukenbo.


 
Well, this was my line of thinking as well.   I don't wanna assume that the guy who is rushing towards me, wants to continue to verbally assault me, when he could've continued to do that from a distance.  I'm going to assume that he is intent on causing me serious harm.


----------



## Danjo (Mar 19, 2009)

The thing about using restraints is that 

1) They are allowed according to California Ed Code.:

_"*44807*. Every teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a_
_strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on_
_the playgrounds, or during recess. A teacher, vice principal,_
_principal, or any other certificated employee of a school district,_
_shall not be subject to criminal prosecution or criminal penalties_
_for the exercise, during the performance of his duties, of the same_
_degree of physical control over a pupil that a parent would be_
_legally privileged to exercise but which in no event shall exceed the_
_amount of physical control reasonably necessary to maintain order,_
_protect property, or protect the health and safety of pupils, or to_
_maintain proper and appropriate conditions conducive to learning."_

and 2) They have a pretty good psychological effect. When someone grabs you and renders you unable to move, it leaves an impression. Fortunately a school situation like ours, I generally don't have to worry about getting jumped. I wouldn't use them in a street confrontation due to not wanting to have my back exposed while using them.


----------



## MJS (Mar 19, 2009)

Good info Dan! 

I was hoping that the questions that I had asked of a few others would get answered.  I'm interested in hearing how they deal with someone punching or grabbing them, as well as their thoughts on that Kaju link I posted.


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 19, 2009)

MJS said:


> Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall. ... so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, ...


 
From what I saw when I went out there, the students regularly put in about 12 hours of class time on the mats per week.   

"There is no basic information, only basic application"


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 20, 2009)

I spoke to Doc and below you'll find what he thinks.



MJS said:


> So, are you saying that someone can't develop those things you mention if their primary goal is self defense? Or do you feel that those things come afterwards?


 
*Not at all. Like everything else, it depends upon what your goals are, and what you are willing to do to get to those goals. I have students looking for self-defense expertise, (like my law enforcement officers), but all of my students want that on some level, and all are willing to invest the time needed to get a more complete perspective and long lasting skills. They understand coming in, that it is a process. I have students who have been with me over thirty years.*



MJS said:


> True. Now, we've all been thru the commercial vs non commercial debates, so I'll ask you this: I'm going to say that Doc is not running a commercial school. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. So, if thats the case, how does his initial instruction compare to a commercial school? Does he have people doing forms for 2-3 yrs before showing an application?


 
*The interpretation of Kenpo I was taught and teach, as well as all of the Ed Parker Lineage, is technique based, not forms based, so the idea of doing forms for years before knowing what they mean is a foreign concept. My teaching is absolutely grounded in a working understanding of hard basic applications. Not only do you need to have a consistent neutral bow as an example, you must know the base associated footwork, and be capable of performing it without being knocked off your axis under extreme pressure. That is a curriculum mandate. Everything that you are taught, you must be able to perform under realistic conditions, and may not move on until you can demonstrate it consistently. There are no "what if" scenarios. "There is no try, you must do." My female students especially appreciate the approach.*




MJS said:


> Going on what you said, I'm going to assume that people that train with Doc also have lives, wives, kids, etc. outside of the training hall. So, if he does have those types of people, what keeps them coming back? I don't know the schedules of every student that trains with him, so whether they spend an hour a week or 5, I'd have to assume that he isn't teaching them stripped info. Would you say that the others that trained under Parker, ie: Tatum, Palanzo, etc., were just interested in the commercial, bare bones material or were they interested in what was taught to Doc? I say this, because it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but he (Doc) got something that nobody else did.


 

*My students come back because they keep improving their skills, and become more and more knowledgeable EVERY CLASS. Guys that have been around twenty plus years keep shaking their heads at the voluminous nature of the information available if you just continue to walk through the door. My oldest student is 69 years old, and he started with Ed Parker in 1964. He's in class regularly asking questions, and shaking his head in amazement.*


*I can not say what the others were interest in, but I think it was a matter of what Parker wanted to teach them based on their circumstances, and what he needed at the time, along with other factors. The two you mentioned were and still are in the commercial business of Kenpo. If you have guys making money for you and for themselves teaching a commercial product, why would you do anything else? Joe was on the east coast running a chain of schools when he met Mr. Parker, and then all those schools became IKKA affiliated schools. Larry ran the only school that ever made a profit that Ed Parker owned. You don't screw your business by running people away with more intense and demanding teaching.*




MJS said:


> I havent been around as many Kenpo higher ups as you or some others probably have, so let me ask this: Is anyone else teaching this method?


 
*I cannot speak for others all I can say it was I've seen from my own personal experiences, and from my interaction with Parker. With that qualification, the answer is no. But that is not to say it is some kind of secret, it is just a more intense and higher level of knowledge. Ed parker never taught me a "technique." He taught me the true underlying principles, not concepts. Physically demanding, unyielding, no wiggle room, must be done exactly this way, principles. I've never come in contact with anyone who utilizes the same method.*




MJS said:


> Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first. However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left? Keep talking? Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off? I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance. Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat. Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there. If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.


 
*No problem there. Knock his head off. Just don't blind the guy for throwing a punch at you. I don't teach passivity. What I teach is aggressive, and can be brutal. But it is moral and not maiming for the given circumstances.*




MJS said:


> Fortunately, my other arts in addition to Kenpo, provide me with a wide variety of things to pick from.  For a simple shove, I can't see breaking the guys arm, but I also dont see anything wrong with a lock, or simply knocking the hand away. Something like Triggered Salute followed by a lock hardly seems as brutal as an eye shot. However, my intentions are not to play games either. If the person isn't getting the hint, well....


 
*I've been a cop for over thirty years. I don't play games with people. Comply or face the consequences. I'm not going to get hurt.*



MJS said:


> In closing, I notice a few parts to my post were overlooked:
> 
> 2) For those that are against the brutal side, how do you all gear your training? I mean, if someone is going to say that something is not correct, the next thing is to give a reason why. That being said, for someone punching you, grabbing you, attempting to hit you with a weapon, how do you all deal with the attack? Do you handle it in a more passive fashion or go with the brutal fashion?


 
*The appropriate level for the circumstances, that does include brutal if necessary.*



MJS said:


> 3) I came across this recent post. Thought it was pretty interesting, and hopefully I can get some feedback from the Kaju people on here as well. Was this person who the story is about wrong for how he handled the situation? Is the attitude of the Kaju people wrong? I ask this because this, from what I've read is what its all about....surviving on the street.


 
*Perfectly reasonable. Probably didn't go far enough.*



MJS said:


> I almost get the impression that this thread is turning into a discussion on my choices of action. As I said, if someone thinks that my solutions are wrong, thats fine, and accept that. However, its only natural for the person who disagrees, to offer up what they do.


 
*Fair enough.*


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> Well, as I've said many times, I'm a fan of trying to verbally defuse something first. However, if that isn't working or if there is just no time to even try, then what options are left? Keep talking? Let him approach me, and hope that he doesnt knock my head off? I'm looking at it like this...he can talk and posture all he wants from a distance. Once he gets within my personal space, I'm taking that as a threat. Now, I never said that I was going to take his eye, but I'm not just going to stand there. If I'm in the wrong for kicking the guy in the groin and elbowing him in the face, then so be it.


 
For my part I wanted to offer a clarification that seems necessary. I have been advocating using appropriate force to subdue a threat. I think by some this has been interpreted as me advocating some sort of gentle passivity. It is not. Because the default position among many is to train to use excessive (disproportionate) force for the situation, I have made a point of arguing against such a mindset. But that doesn't mean you don't mop the floor with the guy when the situation warrants it.

So, I am not advocating against violence (or if you prefer brutality,) rather it is better understood that I am advocating against unnecessary and disproportionate violence. This is especially so when considering the use of violence from a training perspective.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2009)

DavidCC said:


> From what I saw when I went out there, the students regularly put in about 12 hours of class time on the mats per week.
> 
> "There is no basic information, only basic application"


 
Of course, there are more things to consider.  Things such as:

How long are the classes?

What hours to the students who train have?  

What type of lifestyle the students have?

For myself, I normally work the 4pm-12am shift.  That does not allow me to make it to too many classes, so I have to rely on privates and class time when I can make it.

The school I attend is open 2 days a week, Tue and Thur for noon time classes.  Those classes are 1hr.  Depending on my days off, which rotate every 3 weeks, that will determine what night classes I can attend.

My wife is supportive of my training.  I was training long before she came into my life, she knows that, and is fine with it.  However, due to my schedule, (she works days...830am-5pm, Mon-Fri) I do cherish the time we do have, so there are days, when yes, spending time with her, vs. going to class, I stay home.  

Now, if I worked during the day, and classes were 3-4 hrs long, well, its a no brainer that one would be able to train for 12 hrs a week.  Additionally, keep in mind that the average MA class is 1-1 1/2 hrs long.  Most places teach kids, so they have to work that into their schedule, so yes, its possible that an adult class in the average school could be 2 times a week, giving 2-3hrs of training each week.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> For my part I wanted to offer a clarification that seems necessary. I have been advocating using appropriate force to subdue a threat. I think by some this has been interpreted as me advocating some sort of gentle passivity. It is not. Because the default position among many is to train to use excessive (disproportionate) force for the situation, I have made a point of arguing against such a mindset. But that doesn't mean you don't mop the floor with the guy when the situation warrants it.
> 
> So, I am not advocating against violence (or if you prefer brutality,) rather it is better understood that I am advocating against unnecessary and disproportionate violence. This is especially so when considering the use of violence from a training perspective.


 
Thank you for the reply.   While it may have been missed in translation, I think we're on the same page.  Then again, our interpretation of whats unnecessary and disproportionate may vary.


----------



## MJS (Mar 21, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> I spoke to Doc and below you'll find what he thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Thank you.


----------



## tigdra (Mar 25, 2009)

I don't know I have read the thread and I have a few observations. I don't really understand the logic. 

Training to main or kill is bad because in the moment you'll forget to close your fist and hit the cheek bone instead of poking into the eyes. 

But training to hit the check bone with your fist all the time and then trying to break the habit and open your hand when the time comes is ok.

Yet closing the fist is a much more instinctive reaction than palming, poking etc.

And now that we are on the subject if more often than not we would like to use as little force as possible then why don't we all practice aikido and sometimes practice moderately forceful techniques and rarely practice killing tech. 

Wouldn't that be considered even more advanced training.

So following that train of thought then we should have a gun but prefer to carry a stun gun and we should practice using our stun guns more than our handguns.

Personally if someone wants to teach a toned down system because they feel that it is superior let them. I will train myself to maim, tame. kill and everything in between. When it comes time for me to defend my life I will do what needs to be done.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 25, 2009)

tigdra said:


> I don't know I have read the thread and I have a few observations. I don't really understand the logic.
> 
> Training to main or kill is bad because in the moment you'll forget to close your fist and hit the cheek bone instead of poking into the eyes.
> 
> But training to hit the check bone with your fist all the time and then trying to break the habit and open your hand when the time comes is ok.


 
This isn't what I said. You are re-characterizing what I said over several posts to turn it all into a weak argument and something of a straw man. First, the main point is it is not appropriate (ethically or legally, I say) to gouge someone's eyes out for pushing you. So, I think one should question such responses in formalized self-defense techniques. Second, and more to the training issue, if it is inappropriate to use an eye gouge but that is what you hard-wire yourself to do through training, chances are that is how you'll react. Why train yourself to respond inappropriately and excessively? 



tigdra said:


> Yet closing the fist is a much more instinctive reaction than palming, poking etc.


 
It depends on what stimulus you are talking about. And punching is a learned behavior. Kids can hammer fist right out of the gates, but they have a hard time punching. So, categorically suggesting closing the hand is more instinctive than other things is wrong.



tigdra said:


> And now that we are on the subject if more often than not we would like to use as little force as possible then why don't we all practice aikido and sometimes practice moderately forceful techniques and rarely practice killing tech.
> 
> Wouldn't that be considered even more advanced training.


 
Besides being sarcastic this is another mis-characterization. As I stated, I was suggesting that we train and use appropriate force, which is not the same as the least amount. Appropriate may include breaking an arm. Statistically speaking, we are going to be 'attacked' by someone we know. If you can't modulate the level of force you can deploy, then you are going to seriously maim drunk Uncle Bob, which probably won't go over well at future family dinners. 




tigdra said:


> So following that train of thought then we should have a gun but prefer to carry a stun gun and we should practice using our stun guns more than our handguns.


 
You say that jokingly, but there are already people suggesting that your 2nd Amendment rights can be vindicated by allowing you to carry a Taser. I am not one of them. If you are using a firearm in self-defense you must be in threat for your life or serious physical harm. In most places you can't even brandish it or threaten to use it, unless you are facing a lethal self-defense situation. 

So, if you wanted to use a firearms metaphor, the better one would be if you shot someone for pushing you or grabbing your wrist. In that situation, you would not privileged to act the way you did. You are required to use a less-lethal option. Again, it is the appropriateness of your actions that are at issue. So, if you had a Taser, you should have used it. Similarly, if you commit mayhem or cause serious physical harm on another for a push, then you have more than likely reacted excessively. So, I don't think anyone was saying that it was never appropriate to be lethal. I was saying, I think there is a general 'intellectual misapprehension' as to the lethality of a given situation when framing a self-defense scenario.



tigdra said:


> Personally if someone wants to teach a toned down system because they feel that it is superior let them. I will train myself to maim, tame. kill and everything in between. When it comes time for me to defend my life I will do what needs to be done.


 
It is really about having more options, and I would say more appropriate and regularly usable options. And really, if it came to defending your life, I don't think anyone here would say you shouldn't use gouges, throat strikes, testicle strikes, etc.


----------



## SL4Drew (Mar 25, 2009)

MJS said:


> Thank you for the reply.  While it may have been missed in translation, I think we're on the same page. Then again, our interpretation of whats unnecessary and disproportionate may vary.


 
I think that having a good instructor and good training will help sort out a lot of what is unnecessary or disproportionate.  And that is why I am suggesting that some instructors may not be doing a good job on many levels.

It baffles me how people can spend 20 years in the martial arts and still be scared of being accosted by the average thug throwing a punch.


----------



## tigdra (Mar 25, 2009)

SL4Drew said:


> This isn't what I said. You are re-characterizing what I said over several posts to turn it all into a weak argument and something of a straw man. First, the main point is it is not appropriate (ethically or legally, I say) to gouge someone's eyes out for pushing you. So, I think one should question such responses in formalized self-defense techniques. Second, and more to the training issue, if it is inappropriate to use an eye gouge but that is what you hard-wire yourself to do through training, chances are that is how you'll react. Why train yourself to respond inappropriately and excessively?


 
Because I am able to respond in the correct manner because the mind is quicker than the body



SL4Drew said:


> It depends on what stimulus you are talking about. And punching is a learned behavior. Kids can hammer fist right out of the gates, but they have a hard time punching. So, categorically suggesting closing the hand is more instinctive than other things is wrong.


 
That's exactly what I mean kids hammer fist instinctively (closing the fist), Let me reword it clenching your fist during a confrontation is a natural reaction for both the trained and untrained   

To further support my point I'll tell you a little story not more than a month ago I got into a fight 6 against 3, I was inside the 3 group (my father, step mother and myself) against 6 individuals with sticks. My Father one punched a guy in the face and threw another one on the floor I disarmed 3 guy and threw them to the floor and my step mom took out a lady. No lethal blows were thrown yet I mainly train death blows. 



SL4Drew said:


> Besides being sarcastic this is another mis-characterization. As I stated, I was suggesting that we train and use appropriate force, which is not the same as the least amount. Appropriate may include breaking an arm. Statistically speaking, we are going to be 'attacked' by someone we know. If you can't modulate the level of force you can deploy, then you are going to seriously maim drunk Uncle Bob, which probably won't go over well at future family dinners.


 
So what your saying that I should do what I learned in aikido to uncle bob or should I do some hard core kenpo



SL4Drew said:


> You say that jokingly, but there are already people suggesting that your 2nd Amendment rights can be vindicated by allowing you to carry a Taser. I am not one of them. If you are using a firearm in self-defense you must be in threat for your life or serious physical harm. In most places you can't even brandish it or threaten to use it, unless you are facing a lethal self-defense situation.


 
This applies for your martial arts, if you have to respond physically to someone that pushes you as you stated then you shouldn't be practicing martial arts. I don't think a mere push deserves a physical response. Your martial arts training should be used in a life and death situation if a guy that is equal or less than your same stature and strength attacks you the last thing that should come out is your martial arts training. Like I was saying above the 6 against 3 and all with sticks no extreme response why because my life wasn't in danger. 



SL4Drew said:


> So, if you wanted to use a firearms metaphor, the better one would be if you shot someone for pushing you or grabbing your wrist. In that situation, you would not privileged to act the way you did. You are required to use a less-lethal option. Again, it is the appropriateness of your actions that are at issue. So, if you had a Taser, you should have used it. Similarly, if you commit mayhem or cause serious physical harm on another for a push, then you have more than likely reacted excessively. So, I don't think anyone was saying that it was never appropriate to be lethal. I was saying, I think there is a general 'intellectual misapprehension' as to the lethality of a given situation when framing a self-defense scenario.


 
A push or wrist grab doesn't catch you off guard enough to initiate a reaction  it is annoying and may catch you off guard but you won't suddenly start throwing punches instinctively and aside from the the initial response may be blamed on training but ever subsequent stick is thought out. So If I had a gun, stun or what ever I would know that I don't even have pull my weapon out because the situation doesn't merit it.


----------

