Overkill

[MJS]

If we look at a good portion of the techniques in the Kenpo and Kajukenbo systems, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye gouges, arm breaks, hits to the groin, etc. to name a few. In todays world, people don't hesitate to throw a law suit at you, even if they were in the wrong.

So, this brings me to my question: Do you feel that the techniques are too much? I'm not necessarily talking about the extensions, but the base technique itself. Do you think twice before you execute a technique? Do you modify anything so it fits into a lesser category of being brutal?

Thoughts?

Mike

 

[14 Kempo]

Yes, I believe in today's environment, some techniques go too far. I train with ECD. E=Evade. C=Control. D=Destroy. I try to work all my techniques through these three steps and you'll find a lot of them already as they are. It does take some modifications in other instances. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding in CA law is that if a person is on thier back, they are of no threat and therefore can not be touched. We have many techniques that ground a person, but then they continue to kick, stomp and otherwise strike an opponent.

It is unfortunate that thugs can harrass a person, get thier butts handed to them, then turn around and sue ... absolutely rediculous, but real.

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

If we look at a good portion of the techniques in the Kenpo and Kajukenbo systems, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye gouges, arm breaks, hits to the groin, etc. to name a few. In todays world, people don't hesitate to throw a law suit at you, even if they were in the wrong.

So, this brings me to my question: (1) Do you feel that the techniques are too much? I'm not necessarily talking about the extensions, but the base technique itself. (2) Do you think twice before you execute a technique? (3) Do you modify anything so it fits into a lesser category of being brutal?

Thoughts?

Mike

1) No. The techniques are fine. People just need to know when enough is enough. Just because I can seperate someone's shoulder for them grabbing my wrist doesn't mean I need to. But to have the tool if I need to do it is fine. It's not the technique that's bad. It's judgement.

2) No. I have conflict resolution cycle based on my initial perception of the threat. Once I act that's it, no turning back. Escape (flee), immobilize (restrain without damage), Hurt (pain without injury), incapacitate (KO, injure or maim), kill (self explanatory). Judge the situation quickly and act decisively. Thinking about legal ramification can wait until your life is no longer potentially at risk.

3) In practice no. In reality yes. I've lost track of how many wrist and armlocks I've done for real that are designed to break a limb, but I've used them just to release myself and leave the attacker with a sore arm that still works.

 

[donald]

I think you provided some great answers to that question sir.
Beni,muto beni...

1stJohn1:9

 

[HKphooey]

1) No. The techniques are fine. People just need to know when enough is enough. Just because I can seperate someone's shoulder for them grabbing my wrist doesn't mean I need to. But to have the tool if I need to do it is fine. It's not the technique that's bad. It's judgement.

Just like drinking and time with in-laws. Too much....

 

[Touch Of Death]

If we look at a good portion of the techniques in the Kenpo and Kajukenbo systems, we see some pretty brutal stuff. Eye gouges, arm breaks, hits to the groin, etc. to name a few. In todays world, people don't hesitate to throw a law suit at you, even if they were in the wrong.

So, this brings me to my question: Do you feel that the techniques are too much? I'm not necessarily talking about the extensions, but the base technique itself. Do you think twice before you execute a technique? Do you modify anything so it fits into a lesser category of being brutal?

Thoughts?

Mike

No

 

[Doc]

1) No. The techniques are fine. People just need to know when enough is enough. Just because I can seperate someone's shoulder for them grabbing my wrist doesn't mean I need to. But to have the tool if I need to do it is fine. It's not the technique that's bad. It's judgement.

2) No. I have conflict resolution cycle based on my initial perception of the threat. Once I act that's it, no turning back. Escape (flee), immobilize (restrain without damage), Hurt (pain without injury), incapacitate (KO, injure or maim), kill (self explanatory). Judge the situation quickly and act decisively. Thinking about legal ramification can wait until your life is no longer potentially at risk.

3) In practice no. In reality yes. I've lost track of how many wrist and armlocks I've done for real that are designed to break a limb, but I've used them just to release myself and leave the attacker with a sore arm that still works.

You know, I'm getting tired of you buddy.

 

[jdinca]

1) No. The techniques are fine. People just need to know when enough is enough. Just because I can seperate someone's shoulder for them grabbing my wrist doesn't mean I need to. But to have the tool if I need to do it is fine. It's not the technique that's bad. It's judgement.

2) No. I have conflict resolution cycle based on my initial perception of the threat. Once I act that's it, no turning back. Escape (flee), immobilize (restrain without damage), Hurt (pain without injury), incapacitate (KO, injure or maim), kill (self explanatory). Judge the situation quickly and act decisively. Thinking about legal ramification can wait until your life is no longer potentially at risk.

3) In practice no. In reality yes. I've lost track of how many wrist and armlocks I've done for real that are designed to break a limb, but I've used them just to release myself and leave the attacker with a sore arm that still works.

Great answer. Train for the worst case scenario and then respond appropriately.

 

[jdinca]

You know, I'm getting tired of you buddy.

:rofl: