One punch, one kill?

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by psi_radar


Do you guys (and ladies) train to kill or incapacitate?

Actualy yes. Even if I only block a punch, I secretly hope a blood clot will go strait to his brain.

 

[psi_radar]

Actualy yes. Even if I only block a punch, I secretly hope a blood clot will go strait to his brain.

I think you need to drop whatever you're taking and train at Professor Xavier's School for the Unusually Gifted--though I hear sensei Magneto has branched off and formed his own school, and he's the master of blood manipulation.

I get the sarcasm, and I may have miscommunicated--I'm not being holier-than-thou. Just curious as to what people's mindset is when they're training. If I wanted to initiate a rant on the decline of western civilization, I'd talk about last night's Howard Stern show.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Originally posted by psi_radar
I think you need to drop whatever you're taking and train at Professor Xavier's School for the Unusually Gifted--though I hear sensei Magneto has branched off and formed his own school, and he's the master of blood manipulation.

I get the sarcasm, and I may have miscommunicated--I'm not being holier-than-thou. Just curious as to what people's mindset is when they're training. If I wanted to initiate a rant on the decline of western civilization, I'd talk about last night's Howard Stern show.

In that case, I will admit I train to end the fight by either effecting posture or balance. My balance strategy is more likely to cause a death because of the environment. Stop watching Howard Stern.
Sean

 

[psi_radar]

Stop watching Howard Stern.

But it's so enticingly...consistent.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Rather than developing a "killing blow," my goal as a martial artist is to develop the control necessary to ensure I can hurt, incapacitate, and injure at will without resorting to deadly force, yet still protect myself and the ones I care about. Everyone is somebody's baby--even if that person is a total SOB their death will make someone grieve.

Well intentioned, but potentially fatal.

I train for the worst case scenario, and work backward to less serious situations from there. Today, for example, I taught techniques for sexual assault prevention. Once the students had that down THEN I showed them how to water it down for the high school bully scenario (had a lot of teens in the class). I also talk about the ethics of self defense, and provide guidelines for a force continuum....WHEN to use the nasty stuff, and when not to.

Compassion is fine, but sometimes isn't warranted. One might have to be very cold (or hot, perhaps) in dealing with an aggressor.

If I look down my hallway and see a six foot plus, two hundred and something pound man with a crazed look in his eye that tells me perhaps he's on something like "Cat" and he has a buck knife in his hand...and I'm all that is standing between him and my family, I'm going for the deadly force. Right then and there ME AND MY FAMILY are someone's babies. I'm putting him down.


If, however, it is my aged neighbor, and he's having an episode of senile dementia and going at some kids with a garden hoe, I can handle that appropriately and not hurt him.



Regards,


Steve

 

[Touch Of Death]

I read an article about cat five years or so ago. This is the first mention of it I have heard since. Of course I live in a Crystal Meth Mecca. CAT would have some serious competition in this town. I heard it was made with Easy-off or somthing.

 

[theletch1]

Compassion is fine, but sometimes isn't warranted. One might have to be very cold (or hot, perhaps) in dealing with an aggressor

While I am almost certain that this phrase is going to draw heat from some here I must say that I back you 100% on this, Steve. There are times when you and yours MUST come first for your very survival. I once worked with a guy who said that under no circumstances should you injure or kill another man. I asked if he meant to say that he would allow himself to die rather than take the life of another human being. He answered in the affirmative...that to take a life in defense of your own made you no better than the man that was trying to kill you. To say the least he and I had many lively debates on this subject. If it's truly a "him or me" scenario I plan on going home that night.

 

[vincefuess]

I hit very hard, and I know people who hit alot harder than I do. I have hit people very hard and they kept coming, and I have seen people who hit harder than me hit someone and they kept coming. I have also seen people KO'd and sometimes killed by a single punch (take Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini killing Duk Ku Kim in the boxing ring for example).

Is it possible to obtain "one-punch-one-kill"? Absolutely. Is it wise to train with the assumption you will get this feat accomplished every time you get in a scrape? Absolutely not.

We need to have trained to have the optimal power in our strikes, but we also have to bear in mind that the strike may not be perfect and more often than not will require not only proper set-up, but proper follow-up.

What's the old saying... Train Smart- Not Hard?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

He answered in the affirmative...that to take a life in defense of your own made you no better than the man that was trying to kill you.

Like you, I don't agree with this attitude...but I'll give the guy credit for at least having a solid stance in being a true pacifist. He isn't waffling on some middle ground, or at least doesn't appear to be.

Still, I wonder if someone were holding a knife to his child's throat whether he'd feel the same way? Then too, would he condone another person doing the killing on his behalf were it the same situation? Would he inwardly feel relief if a SWAT sniper popped the guy, but then later revile the sniper to the press?

I run into this all the time, as I'm sure many of you do...the "I want to be able to defend myself but I don't want to hurt anybody" type of attitude. People who say this are well intentioned but truly ignorant of the dynamics of agonism (conflict).

One punch, one kill is possible, but unrealistic as a philosophical approach to self defense. Self defense without hurting the opponent is possible but unrealistic as a philosophical approach to self defense. Either can get a person killed.

Dan Anderson said it best in his book "American Freestyle Karate", the situation dicates the response. THAT, I think, is a realistic philosophical approach to self defense.


Regards,


Steve

 

[psi_radar]

Dan Anderson said it best in his book "American Freestyle Karate", the situation dicates the response. THAT, I think, is a realistic philosophical approach to self defense.

I suppose this will make me sound like I'm waffling, but I agree with that statement.

Allow me to rephrase what I said initially. I train to develop a level of control so that I can hurt, injure and incapacitate and stop an altercation as quickly as possible. However, situations may warrant deadly force and I'd deal with that if I had to. I wouldn't own 12 guns if that wasn't the case. But that is a last resort.

As the quote says, it depends on the situation, and I'd meet the threat with equal or slightly greater force. If I woke up in bed with a knife to my throat, then you bet I'd throw just about everything I had at them and damn the consequences, once I had an opportunity. If I got mugged by an addict who could barely stand up, I'd definitely be more restrained.

My point was that I train for proficiency and control so that I can inflict the chosen level of damage necessary--which in most cases, falls short of deadly force, in my opinion.

 

[theletch1]

My point was that I train for proficiency and control so that I can inflict the chosen level of damage necessary--which in most cases, falls short of deadly force, in my opinion

I think that most of us train for this level of control. I can't remember any of the members that have been here for any length of time who have had the attitude that they train to kill every assailant. As a general rule each of us trains in the SD aspects of our art to get us home to our families at night with the least amount of damage to ourselves and to anyone who may attack us. It is very telling that you use the words "chosen level of damage". It says to me that you are both intelligent enough to know that the damage done is, generally, up to you to control and responsible enough to make the choice to use a level of technique that will get the job done without unnecessary damage. That doesn't make you come across as waffling at all, rather it makes you come across as a realist. The man I was discussing in my previous post was a genuinely good man. We became good friends and even after a heated debate between the two of us on the merits of our respective believ systems we could still sit down for a beer at the end of the work day.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The man I was discussing in my previous post was a genuinely good man. We became good friends and even after a heated debate between the two of us on the merits of our respective believ systems we could still sit down for a beer at the end of the work day.

That's the way it ought to be...everywhere.

I have friends who I don't agree with philosophically, or politically, or theologically...but they're still my friends. They run across a huge spectrum of people from various walks of life. Liberals, conservatives, atheists, ministers, Gays, homophobes.

Sadly, it doesn't always work that way...and many people divide into camps and hunker down to defend their beliefs...viciously, if need be.

Glad you could get along with this guy.


Steve