Kenpo 5.0 Commercial

[arnisador]

Even in self defense, our actions are still going to be under the microscope.

There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified

Robert McNally will not face criminal charges in the death of David Meyers, Brizzi said in a statement.

Meyers, 52, climbed through a window and tried to assault McNally's 17-year-old daughter in her bedroom at about 3:20 a.m. Sunday, police said.


McNally, 64, was awakened by the girl's screams and struggled with the attacker, putting him in a fatal chokehold, police said.


Meyers, a convicted sex offender, was nude except for a mask. He carried a rope, condoms and a knife, police said.

Lengthier stories made it apparent that the father had not used a chokehold as we understand it but was laying on the intruder, holding him down with an arm around his neck. When the police arrived they had to tell him he could finally let go. The autopsy indicated that the intruder's heart disease contributed to his death.

A few days after the attack, but before the story above, this story was the front page headline in the Indianapolis Star:
When deadly force is justified

Advocates say laws protect the right to self-defense, but opponents fear they encourage violence


The story doesn't explicitly quote people calling for the father to be prosecuted, but indicates that there are those who oppose the law that shields him from prosecution.

So, theorize all you want, folks...but a 64 year old man in his own house defended his daughter from sexual assault against an armed man who was a convicted felon, using only his hands. The felon died from the man's actions and his own pre-existing heart condition, and some people think the law that protects the homeowner is too broad. So if you think you're justified in bashing a man's head in on the street, be aware that there are people (and jurisdictions) that disagree. It doesn't matter whether you think that's right or not.

 

[JTKenpo]

There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified




Lengthier stories made it apparent that the father had not used a chokehold as we understand it but was laying on the intruder, holding him down with an arm around his neck. When the police arrived they had to tell him he could finally let go. The autopsy indicated that the intruder's heart disease contributed to his death.

A few days after the attack, but before the story above, this story was the front page headline in the Indianapolis Star:
When deadly force is justified

Advocates say laws protect the right to self-defense, but opponents fear they encourage violence


The story doesn't explicitly quote people calling for the father to be prosecuted, but indicates that there are those who oppose the law that shields him from prosecution.

So, theorize all you want, folks...but a 64 year old man in his own house defended his daughter from sexual assault against an armed man who was a convicted felon, using only his hands. The felon died from the man's actions and his own pre-existing heart condition, and some people think the law that protects the homeowner is too broad. So if you think you're justified in bashing a man's head in on the street, be aware that there are people (and jurisdictions) that disagree. It doesn't matter whether you think that's right or not.

But I would still sleep better knowing that perv is dead. Right or wrong.

 

[Doc]

There's a thread on this Indianapolis area incident elsewhere on the site:
Prosecutor: Fatal attack was justified




Lengthier stories made it apparent that the father had not used a chokehold as we understand it but was laying on the intruder, holding him down with an arm around his neck. When the police arrived they had to tell him he could finally let go. The autopsy indicated that the intruder's heart disease contributed to his death.

A few days after the attack, but before the story above, this story was the front page headline in the Indianapolis Star:
When deadly force is justified

Advocates say laws protect the right to self-defense, but opponents fear they encourage violence


The story doesn't explicitly quote people calling for the father to be prosecuted, but indicates that there are those who oppose the law that shields him from prosecution.

So, theorize all you want, folks...but a 64 year old man in his own house defended his daughter from sexual assault against an armed man who was a convicted felon, using only his hands. The felon died from the man's actions and his own pre-existing heart condition, and some people think the law that protects the homeowner is too broad. So if you think you're justified in bashing a man's head in on the street, be aware that there are people (and jurisdictions) that disagree. It doesn't matter whether you think that's right or not.

I see it everyday, and it was a focus of mine with Mr. Parker because I am in law enforcement, and that was a big part of our focus.

I doubt anyone ever has said it better sir.

 

[Doc]

But I would still sleep better knowing that perv is dead. Right or wrong.

Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?

Ayup. I wrecked a guy at a stoplight...he was an aggressive driver in a road-rage snit, terrorizing a young mom with toddlers in her car; sparked my "Crusader Rabbit" sense of right and wrong. He got out, and I broke him up. Badly. Joints a-failing, facial lacerations, limbs pointing the wrong way, etc. I was mortified to go home, sure the PD would be there waiting for me, reviewing the entire thing in my head obsessively, realizing I had caused unjustifiable harm to the man. My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.

You only gotta have one of those, "When is the doorbell gonna ring with Sherrifs comin' to take me away on a warrant?" nights sleep to get you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.

D.

 

[DavidCC]

Ayup. I wrecked a guy at a stoplight...he was an aggressive driver in a road-rage snit, terrorizing a young mom with toddlers in her car; sparked my "Crusader Rabbit" sense of right and wrong. He got out, and I broke him up. Badly. Joints a-failing, facial lacerations, limbs pointing the wrong way, etc. I was mortified to go home, sure the PD would be there waiting for me, reviewing the entire thing in my head obsessively, realizing I had caused unjustifiable harm to the man. My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.

You only gotta have one of those, "When is the doorbell gonna ring with Sherrifs comin' to take me away on a warrant?" nights sleep to get you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.

D.

and you seemed like such a nice guy... mental note - "do not cut Dave off in traffic".

 

[JTKenpo]

Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?

So what we let the system do it's job? No offense Doc but how many guys have you collared and were back on the street in no time flat? I'm sure you see that everyday as well. I respectfully disagree with being nice to someone that tries to harm my family. By nice I mean bloody nose and wind knocked out of them as put by kempuda. And by this line of thought I can't defend my child to begin with.

Again, I respectfully disagree on this one.

 

[JTKenpo]

Maybe. Consider your ability to "sleep better at night" while locked down in a mens correctional facility, AND the fact that you are no longer there to protect your child from the rest of the scum out there. Who's going to take your place?

Doc I hope some day I am lucky enough to train with you in person. So staying on this thread line of everyone saying you have to stop once the threat is neutralized could you tell me at what point the threat is neutralized here?

and is that a knife to the groin of a downed man?

Don't get me wrong, I Love it but it looks like rip and tear to me.

 

[Flying Crane]

My "defense" ended after the 1st or second shot; I could've stopped, he would've had a bloody nose or lip and the wind knocked out of him, gotten the point, and we all would have gone home, no prob. But... The rest was punishment, and it just doesn't hold up in court.

...you thinking that...mebbe the rip & tear model of kenpo isn't the best option for living in modern society. Thank you for your contributions, sir, to mroe civil and sane defense models.

D.

It's not my intention to assign blame or otherwise point fingers, so consider this just me being the Devil's Advocate.

Is this a flaw in the system, or a failure of the individual? I suspect the results would not have been greatly different if the training had been in, say, classical Goju Ryu or Wing Chun or something, instead of Mayhem Kenpo.

The inclination to go too far lies within the person, while the method itself is just a tool that develops certain skills. The degree to which those skills are put to use on a bad guy is a result of decisions made by the individual.

A reasonable person has the duty to recognize when he is about to go too far. The type of training he has had is, in my opinion, not to blame. We all gotta use our noggins, and we all gotta be willing to accept the consequences of our own decisions.

Be careful to whom you give a loaded gun. Be careful to whom you teach dangerous skills. But in the end, it is the responsibility of the person to recognize when it's time to quit. What method he has trained in is irrelevant.

 

[Doc]

Doc I hope some day I am lucky enough to train with you in person. So staying on this thread line of everyone saying you have to stop once the threat is neutralized could you tell me at what point the threat is neutralized here?

and is that a knife to the groin of a downed man?

Don't get me wrong, I Love it but it looks like rip and tear to me.

Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.

The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.

Mr. Parker had old footage of himself ripping, slashing, breaking, and stomping downed people as well, but if you asked him he would tell you the same things I've said. I have footage of me shooting a non-moving unarmed man shaped target, doesn't mean I advocate that behavior in application.

You would have served yourself better sir, to simply disagree with the perspective presented. Intelligent people can always do that. Pulling up video from over two decades ago to suggest a philosophical contradiction is not much of a rebuttal.

 

[JTKenpo]

Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.

The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.

Mr. Parker had old footage of himself ripping, slashing, breaking, and stomping downed people as well, but if you asked him he would tell you the same things I've said. I have footage of me shooting a non-moving unarmed man shaped target, doesn't mean I advocate that behavior in application.

You would have served yourself better sir, to simply disagree with the perspective presented. Intelligent people can always do that. Pulling up video from over two decades ago to suggest a philosophical contradiction is not much of a rebuttal.

That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way. I was having fun as well. Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.

Why teach it if you don't advocate it I guess is my point here?

 

[DavidCC]

That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way.

Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.

Weren't you the one who criticized me for contradicting myself? :erg:

 

[Doc]

That wasn't my intent at all sir and I am sorry if you took it that way. I was having fun as well. Oh well do as I say not as I do I guess.

Why teach it if you don't advocate it I guess is my point here?

The point is a simple one sir, I wasn't teaching it on the videos.

Having fun is cool, don't sweat it. But when you're having fun, make it a little more obvious - please? I'm not offended sir, and neither should you be.

I apologize if you took it that way, but the thread and your previous statements and responses suggested you were attempting to rebuttal my position with old non-instructive video.

 

[JTKenpo]

Weren't you the one who criticized me for contradicting myself? :erg:

Doc's got me all twisted up, I don't know what my point is anymore....

 

[Doc]

Doc's got me all twisted up, I don't know what my point is anymore....

See, there YALL go. Blamin' it on the brother again! KIDDING!

 

[JTKenpo]

The point is a simple one sir, I wasn't teaching it on the videos.

Having fun is cool, don't sweat it. But when you're having fun, make it a little more obvious - please? I'm not offended sir, and neither should you be.

I apologize if you took it that way, but the thread and your previous statements and responses suggested you were attempting to rebuttal my position with old non-instructive video.

Yeah after I posted I looked and said I probably should have put some smiley faces or something. Oh well I have been accused of many things but smooth was not any of them.

It wasn't a rebuttal just my underlying feeling that kenpo is brutal and as the saying goes you can take the boy out of the white trash but you can't take the white trash out of the boy.

The whole thread has me thinking of the movie "Devils Advocate" where Al Paccino is giving a monologue about g_d (if you haven't seen the movie Paccino is the devil) and he says g-d gave you free choice but then told you not to use it "look but don't touch; touch but don't feel; feel but don't taste"

 

[marlon]

You know one thing i love sk is that almost every counter we have moves quickly into a control of then other person. Youy can finish them or control them the option is yours but the techniques take you to that point beautifully. Until i learned a few things from Doc it is one of the big differences i saw btwn sk and ak.

respectfully,
Marlon

 

[jks9199]

So what we let the system do it's job? No offense Doc but how many guys have you collared and were back on the street in no time flat? I'm sure you see that everyday as well. I respectfully disagree with being nice to someone that tries to harm my family. By nice I mean bloody nose and wind knocked out of them as put by kempuda. And by this line of thought I can't defend my child to begin with.

Again, I respectfully disagree on this one.

There's a very significant difference between defending yourself and destroying another human being with deliberation and intent. Note the two accounts posted both involve people going too far in the heat of the moment -- not intentionally and deliberately. Both people felt guilt and remorse over their actions, and were rightfully concerned about the implications of their actions. Neither were people who regularly and as part of their professional life used calibrated force against another person to subdue and control them. (Want to see someone who's a real expert in using JUST enough force to control some one -- look at some of the nurses in a psych ward.)

Recall my comments elsewhere regarding the bravado of the statement "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." I'd say it's better to know what you're doing and avoid EITHER option. That doesn't mean getting pounded till the cops arrive. What it does mean is that your use of force must be reasonable and appropriate to the threat presented -- and must cease when the threat is no longer perceived. (Again, in the previously posted accounts, I'd note that they did stop, even if not at the earliest point possible -- which is why I used no longer perceived not stopped.) You can't "save society the cost of the trial" and kill someone without significant and appropriate justification.

It's not my intention to assign blame or otherwise point fingers, so consider this just me being the Devil's Advocate.

Is this a flaw in the system, or a failure of the individual? I suspect the results would not have been greatly different if the training had been in, say, classical Goju Ryu or Wing Chun or something, instead of Mayhem Kenpo.

The inclination to go too far lies within the person, while the method itself is just a tool that develops certain skills. The degree to which those skills are put to use on a bad guy is a result of decisions made by the individual.

A reasonable person has the duty to recognize when he is about to go too far. The type of training he has had is, in my opinion, not to blame. We all gotta use our noggins, and we all gotta be willing to accept the consequences of our own decisions.

Be careful to whom you give a loaded gun. Be careful to whom you teach dangerous skills. But in the end, it is the responsibility of the person to recognize when it's time to quit. What method he has trained in is irrelevant.

Fantastic post -- and you beat me to several points. Ultimately, every sequence of techniques can be interrupted at various points. Just because the form teaches "trap the kick, spin breaking the leg, stomp over the leg to destroy the knee and hip, roll smashing the spine and dislocating the remains of the leg, stomping the head as you rise to face a new opponent" (yes -- that's a real sequence in one advanced form I know), that doesn't mean you HAVE to do all of it. You can stop, you can simply roll and dislocate, etc. The key is to learn the options, and control the your reactions.

Check the videos sir, they were from the early/mid-eighties while Mr. Parker was alive, and were posted as nostalgia. You'll also notice those video were never brought to light until recently. They have never been represented as "what anyone should do," or what I teach. They are just old videos of guys messing around in the school, and having fun.

The one technique is straight out of the motion kenpo book. I demonstrated it. The knife technique was in fact a control technique, and then we were having "fun" at the end in the classroom talking about what some might teach. We have often mocked what we call the "scorched earth" ideas of self-defense. That doesn't mean anyone advocates the method.

Mr. Parker had old footage of himself ripping, slashing, breaking, and stomping downed people as well, but if you asked him he would tell you the same things I've said. I have footage of me shooting a non-moving unarmed man shaped target, doesn't mean I advocate that behavior in application.

You would have served yourself better sir, to simply disagree with the perspective presented. Intelligent people can always do that. Pulling up video from over two decades ago to suggest a philosophical contradiction is not much of a rebuttal.

Context is always important; just because I demonstrate something that goes to an extreme conclusion doesn't mean it's appropriate for every circumstance or needs to be carried to it's conclusion.

 

[DavidCC]

You know one thing i love sk is that almost every counter we have moves quickly into a control of then other person. Youy can finish them or control them the option is yours but the techniques take you to that point beautifully. Until i learned a few things from Doc it is one of the big differences i saw btwn sk and ak.

respectfully,
Marlon

yeah, I like that too

 

[Doc]

There's a very significant difference between defending yourself and destroying another human being with deliberation and intent. Note the two accounts posted both involve people going too far in the heat of the moment -- not intentionally and deliberately. Both people felt guilt and remorse over their actions, and were rightfully concerned about the implications of their actions. Neither were people who regularly and as part of their professional life used calibrated force against another person to subdue and control them. (Want to see someone who's a real expert in using JUST enough force to control some one -- look at some of the nurses in a psych ward.)

Recall my comments elsewhere regarding the bravado of the statement "It's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." I'd say it's better to know what you're doing and avoid EITHER option. That doesn't mean getting pounded till the cops arrive. What it does mean is that your use of force must be reasonable and appropriate to the threat presented -- and must cease when the threat is no longer perceived. (Again, in the previously posted accounts, I'd note that they did stop, even if not at the earliest point possible -- which is why I used no longer perceived not stopped.) You can't "save society the cost of the trial" and kill someone without significant and appropriate justification.



Fantastic post -- and you beat me to several points. Ultimately, every sequence of techniques can be interrupted at various points. Just because the form teaches "trap the kick, spin breaking the leg, stomp over the leg to destroy the knee and hip, roll smashing the spine and dislocating the remains of the leg, stomping the head as you rise to face a new opponent" (yes -- that's a real sequence in one advanced form I know), that doesn't mean you HAVE to do all of it. You can stop, you can simply roll and dislocate, etc. The key is to learn the options, and control the your reactions.



Context is always important; just because I demonstrate something that goes to an extreme conclusion doesn't mean it's appropriate for every circumstance or needs to be carried to it's conclusion.

Who said "logic was dead." So simple isn't it? You wouldn't think we needed such a lengthy discussion to arrive at your simple and cogent point of common sense sir.