Mixing arts - is this wrong?

[Kong Soo Do]

As stated above, the kicks in Hapkido are different from the kicks in Taekwondo, and if anything, Taekwondo adopted many kicks from Hapkido. Also, I learned that we do not "take them out at the knees" in Hapkido or otherwise do anything that would permanently injure someone.

Could you offer some additional information on where you learned this, and what the reasoning was behind this philosophy?

Thank you.

 

[puunui]

Could you offer some additional information on where you learned this, and what the reasoning was behind this philosophy?

I was training with GM JI Han Jae when I lived in San Francisco. I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground. I was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped.

I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever. He said that Hapkido is for pain only, not breaking joints. He made sure I understood this and it seemed at the time to be one of his central and most important philosophies, the idea that when we permanently injure someone, we permanently injure ourselves as well. It's right up there with his philosophy regarding lying about history or one's credentials. He is opposed to that too. If you are dishonest with others, then you are dishonest with yourself as well.

I saw that homeless guy later walking around the same area and he was wearing some sort of brace on his wrist. I don't think he recognized me when I walked right past him. He used to hang around one of my favorite restaurants, Pancho Villa in the Mission District, which I always go to whenever I am in the area. That Wells Fargo bank branch with the ATM is still there as well.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground. I was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped.

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

I want to make sure I understand you completely here. In a situation where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold?

That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?

I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head, while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e. individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?

It's right up there with his philosophy regarding lying about history or one's credentials.

Curious that he would have this particular philosophy from the various interviews I've read from him and about him. Did he have anything to say about humility or not acting arrogant to other people? I mean if we're looking out for the feelings of violent attackers and all we should be looking to be even nicer to those not violently attacking us?

Just a thought I suppose.

Thank you for expounding, I have learned quite a bit from your post.

 

[puunui]

I want to make sure I understand you completely here. In a situation where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold? That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?

If you have any issue with GM Ji, you can take it up with him directly. But I did see his point, I could have accomplished the same result without injuring his wrist. Obviously, you operate under a different set of philosophical principles than GM Ji does, and by extension, I do.

I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head, while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e. individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?

I'm just a sport guy, I kept going until the referee (his girlfriend) said break.

Curious that he would have this particular philosophy from the various interviews I've read from him and about him. Did he have anything to say about humility or not acting arrogant to other people?

I've never seen him act arrogant to others and never read anything to that effect either. I will say that he is very Korean in thinking and culture, at least as far as concepts like respect go. I do find it interesting that you choose to use his techniques and the name and think the type of thoughts that you do towards him. Have you ever met him, or are you going with what you read only? He's quite an interesting man, and one of the best instructors I have ever had.

Thank you for expounding, I have learned quite a bit from your post.

Doesn't sound like you learned anything, but if you say so.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

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

Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;

1. He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
2. You threw him down and just wanted to put a little exclamation point on it. Which would put you at excessive force since he was not employing lethal force against you.

Which was it?

If the attack was violent enough to require you to grab the attacker, and throw him to the ground, and attempt to kick him in the head....then maybe worrying about him getting wrist pain ten years from now when the weather turns cold is on the bottom of the list of considerations.

And for GM Ji to give you a...

...long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever....

...sounds a bit out-of-touch too be completely straight-forward with you.

Force should be appropriate to the situation with no more force being applied than is necessary to stop the threat. So, either you were in a lethal force situation (by your feeling the need to kick a man in the head who was already on the ground) and therefore who gives a rip about him having a sore wrist...or...you over-reacted big time and you're lucky you didn't wind up in jail.

I'm just a sport guy, I kept going until the referee (his girlfriend) said break.

You just validated everything I've been trying to educate you on in regards to SD vs. Sport training with this statement. We fight how we train and under duress we WILL revert to our training (good or bad). As my sig line says, we do not rise to the occassion, we sink to the level of our training.

Have you ever met him, or are you going with what you read only? He's quite an interesting man, and one of the best instructors I have ever had.

I have never met him, so I can only go by the words he's written or what has been written about him by those that know him. I'm sure he's a fascinating man and I'm glad you have enjoyed his instruction.

Doesn't sound like you learned anything, but if you say so.

Oh, on the contrary, I've learned a great deal. Thank you.

 

[puunui]

Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;

1. He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
2. You threw him down and just wanted to put a little exclamation point on it. Which would put you at excessive force since he was not employing lethal force against you.

Which was it?

Neither. But even if it was one of those, I'm always right, remember? If not, then there are some outstanding questions that you still need to answer.

If the attack was violent enough to require you to grab the attacker, and throw him to the ground, and attempt to kick him in the head....then maybe worrying about him getting wrist pain ten years from now when the weather turns cold is on the bottom of the list of considerations.

I didn't throw him to the ground. Try re-reading. But then again, I'm always right, remember?

And for GM Ji to give you a...
...sounds a bit out-of-touch too be completely straight-forward with you.

I'm glad that he gave me that lecture. Made me think about things in a whole new light.

Force should be appropriate to the situation with no more force being applied than is necessary to stop the threat. So, either you were in a lethal force situation (by your feeling the need to kick a man in the head who was already on the ground) and therefore who gives a rip about him having a sore wrist...or...you over-reacted big time and you're lucky you didn't wind up in jail.

Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

You just validated everything I've been trying to educate you on in regards to SD vs. Sport training with this statement. We fight how we train and under duress we WILL revert to our training (good or bad). As my sig line says, we do not rise to the occassion, we sink to the level of our training.

that was a joke, one in which you obviously missed.

I have never met him, so I can only go by the words he's written or what has been written about him by those that know him. I'm sure he's a fascinating man and I'm glad you have enjoyed his instruction.

You have a problem with him, go call him up. Or better yet, go visit him. Go tell him what you think of him to his face.

Oh, on the contrary, I've learned a great deal. Thank you.

That would mean I was wrong. But according to you, I'm always right, remember?

 

[oftheherd1]

Puunui,

I have followed your posts with interest. But I am curious about the two statements below. They seem contradictory. I was hoping you might clarify things. You said (in the pasted in quotes below) your GM was angry you might have injured someone, then that neither you nor your GM give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

I don't know that I would have been ready to kick the attacker, but perhaps, if I thought he was about to resume his attack. Certainly if I thought he was about to resume, I would have no reservations against defending myself further.

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

Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Puunui,

I have followed your posts with interest. But I am curious about the two statements below. They seem contradictory. I was hoping you might clarify things. You said (in the pasted in quotes below) your GM was angry you might have injured someone, then that neither you nor your GM give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

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

Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

Thanks for helping me understand what you meant.

Ah, but they are not contradictory . Look at it again: He said that they give a rip, not that they don't give a rip. In other words, it does concern them.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do
Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;

1. He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
2. You threw him down and just wanted to put a little exclamation point on it. Which would put you at excessive force since he was not employing lethal force against you.

Which was it?

Neither.

Neither?

Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death. I think you'll find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to justify this amount of force being used. One does not just 'kick em in the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.

In order to justify the use of deadly force the attacker needs to have the ability to cause you great bodily harm and/or death and you need to be in fear of your life. The actual terminology will differ from state to state, but that is the gist of what is required.

So, when this man grabbed your elbow, and you described it as 'in a threatening manner', were you in fear of your life?

I didn't throw him to the ground.

You're absolutely right! You're 'joint lock' and the force of your 'slap across the throat with the back of your hand' forced him to the ground. Going to the throat with a strike powerful enough to cause him to stumble and fall down sounds like you're pretty much at lethal force already without even considering your attempt to tap-dance on his head.

So again, were you in fear of your life at this point?

I'm glad that he gave me that lecture. Made me think about things in a whole new light.

I'm glad he did as well. Otherwise we would not be able to bring this type of thinking to light for others to consider. More on this later after your responses to the above questions.

that was a joke, one in which you obviously missed.

Oh, I caught the smiley at the end. And I know what you were trying to say. But I was hoping that it would truly be a light bulb moment for you. I'm still hoping.

Luck had nothing to do with it. And GM Ji and I give a rip about the possibility of him having a permanent injury.

From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground. But I will reserve final judgement on that until you answer the question of whether or not you were in fear of your life when he grabbed your elbow 'threateningly'.

And exactly how was the grab threatening?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground. But I will reserve final judgement on that until you answer the question of whether or not you were in fear of your life when he grabbed your elbow 'threateningly'.

And exactly how was the grab threatening?

Anytime an unknown person grabs you and demands something from you, you are in potentially life threatening danger. In this instance, the assailant had a potential accomplice; the girlfriend.

Asking if he was fearing for his life at the end of an encounter that was likely less than a second long presupposes that that there was a long enough period of time between knocking the assailant down and preparing to deliver a finish to reconsider whether or not he was still in fear for his life.

Having said that, given that this topic actually began on another thread and is now being discussed on this one, it might warrant its own thread, as it really does not relate to the topic of mixing arts.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Anytime an unknown person grabs you and demands something from you, you are in potentially life threatening danger. In this instance, the assailant had a potential accomplice; the girlfriend.

Daniel

This is very true, which is why I'm looking for more details. And although this (or most) situations usually happen very quickly, if one is using lethal force they must be able to articulate why they felt such force was necessary. As I mentioned above, the terminology differs from state to state but the 'meat of the matter' is things such as 'intent', 'ability', 'what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation' etc. And this is an important point for everyone reading this; know your state statutes on 'use of force' and 'use of deadly force'.

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

• Running away i.e. escape if possible without putting yourself at increased risk.
• Using command presence and verbal desculation.
• A simple push.
• A joint lock.
• A strike to stun but not damage.
• A strike to damage.
• Deadly force.

And a whole range of things in-between. What ever the amount of force, one needs to be able to justify that amount. This is why I'm asking about the initial elbow grab i.e. what caused him to believe he was in a lethal force situation? What was the man doing on the ground that made him attempt to use lethal force against him while on the ground? And if he was indeed in a lethal force situation, it is bad advice to consider not using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat by worrying about the man getting arthritis later in life and hurting when it gets cold.

And I agree with perhaps splitting the topic. The thread has drift and I mean no disrespect to the OP so my apologies to him. If he is fine with the drift then thank you, if not perhaps the mod can split the topic? Perhaps from the point of my initial question to Puunui?

Thank you.

 

[oftheherd1]

Ah, but they are not contradictory . Look at it again: He said that they give a rip, not that they don't give a rip. In other words, it does concern them.

Daniel

Ha! But I will wait to see Puunui's response as to what he meant. I took it the way I said, but am more than willing to be shown I was wrong. ;-)

Personally I reserve judgement on his actions and his GM's response as you did. I am assuming anyone who approaches you from behind while you are conducting an ATM transaction, and grabs you anywhere, is either trying to intimidate, or is very foolish (or both). I also can't imagine anyone taking however short a time to think about response, one best just responds. Even the kick may not be out of context, if the person appears willing to continue.

I was taught immediate followups to techniques, actually as part of the technique; take a knife away and cut the opponent, apply a joint lock to the ground and hit or kick, throw and hit, kick or dislocate a joint. We were also taught we could disengage at any point. The circumstances dictate.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Even the kick may not be out of context, if the person appears willing to continue.

This is correct, which is why I'd like further details of this incident. One still needs to be able to justify the amount of force used either way. For example, when I'm teaching a L.E. recruit class firearms, one of the things I emphasis is that they are responsible for EVERY round they fire. They need to be clear on policy, state statute cover use of deadly force etc and they need to be able to articulate their actions. Same for a martial artist. We need to be able to justify/articulate every strike. That doesn't mean we second guess ourselves at the moment of truth, it means that we need to be prepared beyond just know how to hit someone. We need to know 'when' and 'why' just as surely as we know 'how'.

It may look like I'm trying to put puunui on the spot, and to a certain extent...I am. But not to screw with him but rather to get more details and make this an educational moment.

Why?

I'm a senior member of one of the biggest firearm boards on the net. One of the things I often see is B.S. like;

• 9mm vs. .40 S&W
• What has more 'stopping power'?
• Do bullets know people down?
• Yada yada yada

In essence, some people think that buying a gun and loading it up is all they need for SD. They don't consider the legalities of using a firearm. They don't consider the amount of training necessary to properly use the firearm. They don't consider having a plan. They don't consider things like using one hand, loading one hand, clearing malfunctions etc.

Same thing with the martial arts. It isn't about just 'slapping him across the throat and kicking him in the head while he's on the ground'. There is more to it than that. And while I'm all for using the LEAST amount of force necessary to stop the threat, I don't think worrying about an attacker getting arthritis when it gets cold is wise advice.

But I'll await puunui's details.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think acting in a manner such as Puunui describes i.e. not injuring someone so that they don't get arthritis and dislike you when the weather gets cold is dangerous. During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.

I don't think that it is a matter of second guessing one's self in the heat of the moment so much as a general mindset of training.

If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

If I always train to cause pain, injury, and potentially death, then I won't have to make the choice to escalate to more destructive techniques; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

Its all about the mindset. Choice of specific technique is less important.

For myself, I think along the same lines that he does, albeit for different reasons. My personal frame of mind is to be enough of a potential threat to an attacker that he will decide not to pursue when I escape and not so much of a threat that I actually put him in fear of his own life.

In other words, I just don't want to be worth the hassle. Anything beyond that I reserve for those times when that is not enough. Thankfully, those times have not presented themselves.

Beyond that, my personal beliefs go against desiring to do permanent injury to another. If it is him or me and it is unavoidable, then so be it, but as I said, things have not come to that and I am careful to avoid places where such a scenario is more likely.

Daniel

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't think that it is a matter of second guessing one's self in the heat of the moment so much as a general mindset of training.

If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

If I always train to cause pain, injury, and potentially death, then I won't have to make the choice to escalate to more destructive techniques; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

Its all about the mindset. Choice of specific technique is less important.

For myself, I think along the same lines that he does, albeit for different reasons. My personal frame of mind is to be enough of a potential threat to an attacker that he will decide not to pursue when I escape and not so much of a threat that I actually put him in fear of his own life.

In other words, I just don't want to be worth the hassle. Anything beyond that I reserve for those times when that is not enough. Thankfully, those times have not presented themselves.

Beyond that, my personal beliefs go against desiring to do permanent injury to another. If it is him or me and it is unavoidable, then so be it, but as I said, things have not come to that and I am careful to avoid places where such a scenario is more likely.

Daniel

No issue with anything you've stated. I would like to touch on on point;

If I always train to cause pain but no injury, then I won't have to second guess myself when the moment comes; I'll simply execute as I have been practicing.

As I've mentioned above, using the least amount of force to get the job done is fine and wise. This is a good time to comment that there will be some people that will not stop because of pain. This is why there is a fine line between joint locks and joint destruction. Whether due to mind set, being an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) or a trusty of modern chemistry (drug user), some people do not feel pain (at least not initially). And in some cases will have superhuman strength (for a specific duration of time).

Now if the martial artist is truly experienced in locks, it isn't about the pain caused but rather locking the body so that it isn't able to move. But not everyone is experienced enough to due this. If I get the opportunity tonight I will expound on this further with one of my incidents to demonstrate the point.

So if a lock doesn't work, the martial artist needs to be prepared mentally and physically to go to the next level if it becomes necessary to do so. Just wanted to expound on this point.

Beyond that, my personal beliefs go against desiring to do permanent injury to another. If it is him or me and it is unavoidable, then so be it, but as I said, things have not come to that and I am careful to avoid places where such a scenario is more likely.

Sound wisdom.

Fighting isn't the plan...fighting is for when the plan has failed.

 

[puunui]

Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death. I think you'll find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to justify this amount of force being used. One does not just 'kick em in the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.

I spoke to a police officer and also a prosecutor from the area in question and both agreed that this is a no arrest, no prosecution scenario, and that "lethal force" was not used here and that I was obviously justified in doing what I did, that no explanation beyond what was given was necessary. The prosecutor in particular knows exactly where this incident took place and remembers the conditions at the time. Even if they wanted to attempt to prosecute, it would have been very hard because the complaining witness in this case would probably not show up for court, even if you managed to serve them with a trial subpeona. And even if they did show up, there would be competency and credibility issues. The prosecutor said that in the 1980's President Reagan cut funding for mental health programs, which resulted in mental patients being released and ending up homeless on the streets. He remembers the ATM area in question at the time being a defacto homeless camp, which is true. In addition to the person who grabbed me, there was a camp of 10 or more other homeless people with their shopping carts and dogs. He also said that robberies at ATM machines are common, and that there is a general policy to not prosecute the victim if self defense is involved, like it was in my case. It sends the wrong message (try to rob someone, and if you are injured, then you can prosecute or sue your victim) and the probability of conviction is extremely low.

They both agreed that if a police officer or prosecutor wanted to push it, it was because they are inexperienced in the practical realities of such cases, or they had a separate hidden agenda for pushing the issue and that the supervisor for both would quash it. They both stressed the idea that the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", a very high standard, and they wouldn't waste their time, the court's time or a jury's time with this sort of case.

They also felt that it was an even bigger waste of time to attempt to charge and convict me on something that I didn't do. I didn't kick that guy in the head, so why waste everyone's time with that? What ifs are great if you are an ivory tower academic, but not if you actually are responsible for doing the work of getting a conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're absolutely right! You're 'joint lock' and the force of your 'slap across the throat with the back of your hand' forced him to the ground. Going to the throat with a strike powerful enough to cause him to stumble and fall down sounds like you're pretty much at lethal force already without even considering your attempt to tap-dance on his head.

If I wanted to have used "lethal force" in that situation, I wouldn't have used the back of my hand and he wouldn't have stumbled flown backwards. Instead, I would have used the hardened and conditioned edge of my knifehand, I would have struck in a different fashion, and he would have collapsed where he was, holding his crushed windpipe.

From what I'm reading it sounds like your lucky you weren't caught on video trying to kick a man in the head while he was on the ground.

Actually I believe we were caught on video. We were at an ATM machine, and I believe there might have been cameras on the outside of the bank as well. They also had my name, because I did use the ATM machine.

 

[puunui]

During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves.

But isn't that exactly what you are asking everyone to do? See below.

They need to be clear as to the legal requirements of the situation and then proceed with the appropriate amount of force necessary to stop the threat. The amount of 'force' may entail;

• Running away i.e. escape if possible without putting yourself at increased risk.
• Using command presence and verbal desculation.
• A simple push.
• A joint lock.
• A strike to stun but not damage.
• A strike to damage.
• Deadly force.

And a whole range of things in-between. What ever the amount of force, one needs to be able to justify that amount.

Oh, so there are rules then, in a self defense situation. I thought you said that there are no rules, remember?

 

[puunui]

Having said that, given that this topic actually began on another thread and is now being discussed on this one, it might warrant its own thread, as it really does not relate to the topic of mixing arts.

I guess "hijacking a thread" is something only Kong Soo Do can do. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Now if the martial artist is truly experienced in locks, it isn't about the pain caused but rather locking the body so that it isn't able to move. But not everyone is experienced enough to due this. If I get the opportunity tonight I will expound on this further with one of my incidents to demonstrate the point.

That goes without saying. Pain vs. injury were wnat were mentioned.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I guess "hijacking a thread" is something only Kong Soo Do can do. The old, "Do as I say, not as I do" thing.

Not true at all I hijack threads frequently, though I try to return them to their rightful owners as quickly as possible.

Daniel