police shotokan

[Boomer]

I found this video on another forum:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9171300151662938375&q=shotokan

I was wondering what the opinions are of people on this forum about the video. I don't think that the way they're training there looks like they're trying to subdue a criminal...but it is in Japan, not the USA. Would this type of training work here in the US, for cops?

 

[Brandon Fisher]

Would it work yes probably would. Would someone take exception to it? Count on it.

 

[twendkata71]

I think that this type of training would work, but I think that for the needs of the Police, Jujitsu is more suited. I think that these types of karate tactics would lead to many law suits. This is the type of karate do training that I started with when I started training in karate do. Originally Police training in Japan was manly in Judo, Karate training was probably added later.
Karate fighting tactics in Law enforcement worked for Walker,Texas Ranger. hehe. I couldn't resist.

 

[JasonASmith]

Personally, I liked what I saw...
I'm not sure that the American public would handle this type of Karate very well, especially for the police...Everyone wants the police to be "hands off" or "non-lethal", i.e. everyone wants to think themselves "harder" the police...From what I saw, there were some EXTREMELY nasty things in some of those demonstrations...I'd like to think that there are some people(other than most of us) who would encourage that type of training, but I'm not holding my breath...

 

[exile]

Great stuff---loved the slo mo. That inner knife-hand strike to the throat had to hurt. Quite a bit of bleeding seems to go on at their training sessions...

as the man says, it doesn't look very much like sport karate/TKD. But it's true, the kind of scorched-earth effectiveness of this kind of combat training probably goes down a lot better in Japan than it would in North America. The only people who'd really go for it probably would be the lawyers... it would mean lots of business for them...

 

[bydand]

Personally, I liked what I saw...
I'm not sure that the American public would handle this type of Karate very well, especially for the police...Everyone wants the police to be "hands off" or "non-lethal", i.e. everyone wants to think themselves "harder" the police...From what I saw, there were some EXTREMELY nasty things in some of those demonstrations...I'd like to think that there are some people(other than most of us) who would encourage that type of training, but I'm not holding my breath...

I have to agree, I liked what I saw. As for Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public wanting the police to be a hands-off type force, I see that as well; to the detriment of public safety. I may be in the vast minority, but feel as though the Lawyers and Court systems have neutered our police forces. If a drunk takes a swing at a LEO on duty, they SHOULD be able to knock the crap out of them. 99% of the people who give our Police a hard time wouldn't think of trying the same tactics with the average Joe off the street for fear of getting their butts handed to them. Why should our LEO's have to put up with that kind of garbage? Yes I know they are the trained professionals, they are trained to DE-escalate a situation, but for those times when an individual will not co-operate and tries to take the LEO's head off, they should have the option of really fighting back to get the individual under control and out of the situation. How many times has an LEo put someone in their car for transport only to have the person tear apart the car? I get tired of having somebody who is pissed they just got a snout full of pepper spray cost me money to fix a Police car on the taxpayers dime.

Before anyone says anything, I am NOT nor have I ever been a LEO. I was just raised to respect them for a difficult job and think they should be allowed to use whatever "tools" are at their disposal to do their job safety and return home every night.

 

[KOROHO]

I found this video on another forum:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9171300151662938375&q=shotokan

I was wondering what the opinions are of people on this forum about the video. I don't think that the way they're training there looks like they're trying to subdue a criminal...but it is in Japan, not the USA. Would this type of training work here in the US, for cops?

First off, this is a military unit, not Police.

This is too much force for Police Officers here in the U.S. They most certainly would receive complaints and law suits over excessive force. Especially if they drew blood, broke bones or left bruises.

I won't say that no Police forces in Japan use Karate. But most go with Judo or (Yoshinkan) Aikido and some a combination. There is also a Police curriculum known as Taihojutsu, where techniques from various styles - mainly Judo, Yoshinkan Aikido, some Jujutsu, handcuffing technqiues, keibo (asp or baton) and likely some other things.

The Shito Ryu Karate founder, Mabuni Kenwa, was a Police Officer but that was long ago in a different time. Also, Wado Ryu Karate has a syllabus of 14 technqiues known as Keisatsu Waza or Police Techniques. I have not seen them, but here also the founder was a Jujutsu teacher before learning Karate.

In general though, here in the USA, the Police would not be allowed to punch and kick a suspect into submission - even if we do think the guy deserved it. Pain Compliance and submission type techniques that can be theoretically done without causing injuries, leaving bruises or drawing blood are best suited for Police. Especially techqniues that do not draw blood (punching him in the nose or the mouth) due to the widespread HIV problem. You never know who you are dealing with in the street.

If you want to know more about Japanese Police Martial Arts, 2 books I would reccoemend are Darrell Craig's "Japan's Ultimate Martial Art" and Don Cunningham's "Taihojutsu: Law and Order in The Age Of The Samurai".

 

[chinto]

I found this video on another forum:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9171300151662938375&q=shotokan

I was wondering what the opinions are of people on this forum about the video. I don't think that the way they're training there looks like they're trying to subdue a criminal...but it is in Japan, not the USA. Would this type of training work here in the US, for cops?

First of all that is the Japanese Self Defence Force ( the japanese military) and not say a japanese police agency. Like the man said, they use the JSD for real emergencys where survival is extreemly at risk.

as to use of such a training regimin by a department and then the techniques on the street? NO WAY. the ACLU and others would brake the department in a few months with the awards from the law suits. Remember the police are to bring them in alive for trial and with Minumal Force used, and a soldier is to survive and prevent the enemy from acheving his objective.

 

[jks9199]

I take issue with a few statements about police use of force here...

Police are not required to use MINIMUM or MINIMAL force; they are only permitted to use that force reasonably necessary to effect an arrest or gain control of a subject. There's a very important difference between the two ideas. In light of a very complex balancing act, the question is whether the force used by the officer was more than reasonably necessary to obtain their goal; the level of force needed to arrest my 101 year old grandmother is not the same as would be needed were the same officer called on to arrest Matt Hughes, even if both were non-complaint. But, were either to simply comply and submit to arrest -- use of anything beyond minimal positioning of the arrestee's arms would be unjustied. As a loose, general rule, an officer is justified in using force that is at least equal, or even slightly above that which is used to resist. In other words -- pull against a cop, and he can either pull you back, or hit you with his hand. Pull a stick or knife... you can count on getting an up close, personal view of a gun.

 

[chinto]

I take issue with a few statements about police use of force here...

Police are not required to use MINIMUM or MINIMAL force; they are only permitted to use that force reasonably necessary to effect an arrest or gain control of a subject. There's a very important difference between the two ideas. In light of a very complex balancing act, the question is whether the force used by the officer was more than reasonably necessary to obtain their goal; the level of force needed to arrest my 101 year old grandmother is not the same as would be needed were the same officer called on to arrest Matt Hughes, even if both were non-complaint. But, were either to simply comply and submit to arrest -- use of anything beyond minimal positioning of the arrestee's arms would be unjustied. As a loose, general rule, an officer is justified in using force that is at least equal, or even slightly above that which is used to resist. In other words -- pull against a cop, and he can either pull you back, or hit you with his hand. Pull a stick or knife... you can count on getting an up close, personal view of a gun.

I have to agree in general, but for the gun to be drawn you do have to present a deadly force threat. so depending on the stick and how it was handled perhaps not, but the knife defenently and probably shot on that one too. the resonable man interpitation is the one usualy used even with police. but yes minumum force nessesary to effect the arrest is the legal standerd for police.

 

[jks9199]

I have to agree in general, but for the gun to be drawn you do have to present a deadly force threat. so depending on the stick and how it was handled perhaps not, but the knife defenently and probably shot on that one too. the resonable man interpitation is the one usualy used even with police. but yes minumum force nessesary to effect the arrest is the legal standerd for police.

You don't consider a stick or knife a deadly threat? There are quite a few bodies in morgues that would differ on that issue...

In most agencies in the US, a police officer may draw his firearm anytime he feels that he may be presented with a need for it. It's normal to search buildings and make certain types of contacts with guns drawn. A gun in a holster does no good when the fecal matter hits the fan. I know officers who regularly make initial contact during traffic stops with their sidearms drawn, but not presented to the driver. In fact, I've been known to do it on occasion myself.

A police officer in the US is required to be able to articulate why he or she used the level of force they did. That articulation is assessed in light of the threat or resistance met, the officer's condition and beliefs at the time, and several other factors. I said, it's a complex balancing of many factors to determine if the force was excessive. Merely clearing leather often doesn't even rise to being a level of force; I've never had to explain why my gun was out -- only why I pointed it at someone.

 

[chinto]

You don't consider a stick or knife a deadly threat? There are quite a few bodies in morgues that would differ on that issue...

In most agencies in the US, a police officer may draw his firearm anytime he feels that he may be presented with a need for it. It's normal to search buildings and make certain types of contacts with guns drawn. A gun in a holster does no good when the fecal matter hits the fan. I know officers who regularly make initial contact during traffic stops with their sidearms drawn, but not presented to the driver. In fact, I've been known to do it on occasion myself.

A police officer in the US is required to be able to articulate why he or she used the level of force they did. That articulation is assessed in light of the threat or resistance met, the officer's condition and beliefs at the time, and several other factors. I said, it's a complex balancing of many factors to determine if the force was excessive. Merely clearing leather often doesn't even rise to being a level of force; I've never had to explain why my gun was out -- only why I pointed it at someone.

depends on the stick and how the person is handling it. but a knife is of course a deadly force weapon.

yes the officer has to be able to articulate the threat he felt, but also the resonable man on the street would have to agree with him. that is why the results of a shooting team's investagation normaly goes to a grand jury to decide if the officer was justified in using the force used if he fired a weapon.
Yes an officer may draw his weapon with out fireing it. but he is a police officer who is duty bound to take a suspect into custidy. In most departments I understand that he still must justify why he drew the weapon even if he did not point it at the suspect.
I personaly consider pointing a weapon, cop or civilian at some one as a decloration of intent to kill, if he was not intending to shoot and kill that person why did he point it at that human being?? However, if you are not a sworn officer of a law enforcement agency, and you point a gun at some one and it is not a deadly force situation, you are provably going to spend at least that night in jail and have a real mess legaly to deal with.

The cops and even courts seem to feel that it is much more serious for a civilian to point a gun then a cop to do the same thing.

The rule of thumb if you carry a gun is usualy " if its not so serious that i will shoot instantly, then i should not reach for let alone point my weapon, and if I do feel it is my life or the attackers and draw the weapon, I dont talk, and I dont posture, i shoot it.
most courts get verry upset in most jurisdictions about people pointing let alone shooting guns at people. they tend to go much harder on some one who points a gun then some one who deals with an altercation with out a weapon. This does not mean that a gun is not a good tool, just that if you carry one and use it pray you are found to be justified by the 12 reasonable men and women who will most likely reveiw your actions well after the fact.

 

[jks9199]

depends on the stick and how the person is handling it. but a knife is of course a deadly force weapon.

yes the officer has to be able to articulate the threat he felt, but also the resonable man on the street would have to agree with him. that is why the results of a shooting team's investagation normaly goes to a grand jury to decide if the officer was justified in using the force used if he fired a weapon.
Yes an officer may draw his weapon with out fireing it. but he is a police officer who is duty bound to take a suspect into custidy. In most departments I understand that he still must justify why he drew the weapon even if he did not point it at the suspect.

Not so many years ago, a cop could go an entire career, and never draw his sidearm outside the range. That's not so today. When I was in patrol, I can count on one hand the number of weeks that I didn't have my gun out for some reason. In my current specialty assignment, it varies more. I have some weeks that I've got it out several times a day; I've got other weeks that I don't need it. But, beyond not drawing it unless it's reasonably likely that I may need it -- in other words, drawing to show off or other forms of mishandling -- I don't have to justify it.

I personaly consider pointing a weapon, cop or civilian at some one as a decloration of intent to kill, if he was not intending to shoot and kill that person why did he point it at that human being?? However, if you are not a sworn officer of a law enforcement agency, and you point a gun at some one and it is not a deadly force situation, you are provably going to spend at least that night in jail and have a real mess legaly to deal with.

The cops and even courts seem to feel that it is much more serious for a civilian to point a gun then a cop to do the same thing.

The rule of thumb if you carry a gun is usualy " if its not so serious that i will shoot instantly, then i should not reach for let alone point my weapon, and if I do feel it is my life or the attackers and draw the weapon, I dont talk, and I dont posture, i shoot it.
most courts get verry upset in most jurisdictions about people pointing let alone shooting guns at people. they tend to go much harder on some one who points a gun then some one who deals with an altercation with out a weapon. This does not mean that a gun is not a good tool, just that if you carry one and use it pray you are found to be justified by the 12 reasonable men and women who will most likely reveiw your actions well after the fact.

A police officer is indeed given wider latitude to do what would be considered brandishing a firearm than an ordinary citizen -- but that doesn't mean that an ordinary citizen, in a situation where they may reasonably percieve that a person is likely to present an immediate threat of bodily harm to themselves or another person may not draw a gun or otherwise prepare to use force. (By the way, if a cop with no justification threatens to shoot someone, or uses any unjustified force -- they are civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.)

If a private citizen uses lethal force, be that a gun or lethal (that is, likely to cause serious bodily harm or death) blows, they must justify just as an officer would -- but they may well be given wider latitude in using more force than an officer would!

The techniques shown in the video clip represent a range of force, including lethal force. Justification for the use of that force may be different in Japan (and is addressed in the clip), but I was simply addressing a widely misunderstood issue about police use of force in the US. Quite simply, many people think that a police officer must use MINIMUM force -- and that's not so. Many people think that a police officer's use of force will be judged by an objective standard; it's not. (See Graham v. Oconnor) It's a complicated assessment of the reasonableness in light of the total circumstances present, including the officer's relative fitness and ability, the suspect's capability, and the environment. It's not a tit-for-tat, "if you punch me, I can punch you" thing. Instead, the officer is permitted to use the necessary force, which may exceed the resistance encountered, to defend himself (which is also true for a private citizen) or to effect an arrest or otherwise take control of a person (which is not true of a private citizen, outside of very narrow issues of citizen arrest, which you are strongly advised not to even begin to mess with; it's too easy to go very wrong!).

 

[chinto]

Not so many years ago, a cop could go an entire career, and never draw his sidearm outside the range. That's not so today. When I was in patrol, I can count on one hand the number of weeks that I didn't have my gun out for some reason. In my current specialty assignment, it varies more. I have some weeks that I've got it out several times a day; I've got other weeks that I don't need it. But, beyond not drawing it unless it's reasonably likely that I may need it -- in other words, drawing to show off or other forms of mishandling -- I don't have to justify it.


A police officer is indeed given wider latitude to do what would be considered brandishing a firearm than an ordinary citizen -- but that doesn't mean that an ordinary citizen, in a situation where they may reasonably percieve that a person is likely to present an immediate threat of bodily harm to themselves or another person may not draw a gun or otherwise prepare to use force. (By the way, if a cop with no justification threatens to shoot someone, or uses any unjustified force -- they are civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.)

If a private citizen uses lethal force, be that a gun or lethal (that is, likely to cause serious bodily harm or death) blows, they must justify just as an officer would -- but they may well be given wider latitude in using more force than an officer would!

The techniques shown in the video clip represent a range of force, including lethal force. Justification for the use of that force may be different in Japan (and is addressed in the clip), but I was simply addressing a widely misunderstood issue about police use of force in the US. Quite simply, many people think that a police officer must use MINIMUM force -- and that's not so. Many people think that a police officer's use of force will be judged by an objective standard; it's not. (See Graham v. Oconnor) It's a complicated assessment of the reasonableness in light of the total circumstances present, including the officer's relative fitness and ability, the suspect's capability, and the environment. It's not a tit-for-tat, "if you punch me, I can punch you" thing. Instead, the officer is permitted to use the necessary force, which may exceed the resistance encountered, to defend himself (which is also true for a private citizen) or to effect an arrest or otherwise take control of a person (which is not true of a private citizen, outside of very narrow issues of citizen arrest, which you are strongly advised not to even begin to mess with; it's too easy to go very wrong!).

well I can tell you in my state that a shooting or killing by an officer, just like by a civilian is subject to reveiw by the district atternys office and the grand jurry. and you have to be able to show the resonable man ( in the ospicis of the ordenary people on that grand jury) that you were in danger of imminent harm or death. the lattitude given for a non martial artist is likely to be wider then for a skilled martial artist or police officer. but the district atternys do tend to be more willing to take a non police officer to the grand jury then in the case of a police officer. now part of that is undoubtedly that most of the police officers have a known track record with the DA. ( of course the PR factor does come in to the mix to in the case of an officer. a child shot for instance, and similer, would just about garrantee grand jurys involvment.)

but yes I Agree that the rules for the use of force in japan are very diferent.
but an officer may not use more force then needed to overcome the resistance to his attempt to arrest or detain the suspect. so if he comes up with a round house punch and you shoot him .. you are screwed... but if he comes up with say a switch blade, or a bowie knife .. you shoot him you are fine. ( enless its a 10 year old kid of course... then they tend to get upset.) Of course a cop needs to survive to go home at night. its not a suicide pact to go on patrole.
My main point was that you need to be sure that its justifiable force to draw that weapon and shoot it. for most citizens I would say that just displaying a fire arm when it is not fired leaves you open to some nasty legal problems in most jurisdictions. some far more then others of course. basicly the same kind of thing that flashing your off duty weapon when its suposed to be carreid concealed would bring, or perhaps worse, depending on the local laws, and climate towards fire arms and people carring them.

 

[chinto]

Not so many years ago, a cop could go an entire career, and never draw his sidearm outside the range. That's not so today. When I was in patrol, I can count on one hand the number of weeks that I didn't have my gun out for some reason. In my current specialty assignment, it varies more. I have some weeks that I've got it out several times a day; I've got other weeks that I don't need it. But, beyond not drawing it unless it's reasonably likely that I may need it -- in other words, drawing to show off or other forms of mishandling -- I don't have to justify it.


A police officer is indeed given wider latitude to do what would be considered brandishing a firearm than an ordinary citizen -- but that doesn't mean that an ordinary citizen, in a situation where they may reasonably percieve that a person is likely to present an immediate threat of bodily harm to themselves or another person may not draw a gun or otherwise prepare to use force. (By the way, if a cop with no justification threatens to shoot someone, or uses any unjustified force -- they are civilly, criminally, and administratively liable.)

If a private citizen uses lethal force, be that a gun or lethal (that is, likely to cause serious bodily harm or death) blows, they must justify just as an officer would -- but they may well be given wider latitude in using more force than an officer would!

The techniques shown in the video clip represent a range of force, including lethal force. Justification for the use of that force may be different in Japan (and is addressed in the clip), but I was simply addressing a widely misunderstood issue about police use of force in the US. Quite simply, many people think that a police officer must use MINIMUM force -- and that's not so. Many people think that a police officer's use of force will be judged by an objective standard; it's not. (See Graham v. Oconnor) It's a complicated assessment of the reasonableness in light of the total circumstances present, including the officer's relative fitness and ability, the suspect's capability, and the environment. It's not a tit-for-tat, "if you punch me, I can punch you" thing. Instead, the officer is permitted to use the necessary force, which may exceed the resistance encountered, to defend himself (which is also true for a private citizen) or to effect an arrest or otherwise take control of a person (which is not true of a private citizen, outside of very narrow issues of citizen arrest, which you are strongly advised not to even begin to mess with; it's too easy to go very wrong!).

well I can tell you in my state that a shooting or killing by an officer, just like by a civilian is subject to reveiw by the district atternys office and the grand jurry. and you have to be able to show the resonable man ( in the ospicis of the ordenary people on that grand jury) that you were in danger of imminent harm or death. the lattitude given for a non martial artist is likely to be wider then for a skilled martial artist or police officer. but the district atternys do tend to be more willing to take a non police officer to the grand jury then in the case of a police officer. now part of that is undoubtedly that most of the police officers have a known track record with the DA. ( of course the PR factor does come in to the mix to in the case of an officer. a child shot for instance, and similer, would just about garrantee grand jurys involvment.)

but yes I Agree that the rules for the use of force in japan are very diferent.
but an officer may not use more force then needed to overcome the resistance to his attempt to arrest or detain the suspect. so if he comes up with a round house punch and you shoot him .. you are screwed... but if he comes up with say a switch blade, or a bowie knife .. you shoot him you are fine. ( enless its a 10 year old kid of course... then they tend to get upset.) Of course a cop needs to survive to go home at night. its not a suicide pact to go on patrole.
My main point was that you need to be sure that its justifiable force to draw that weapon and shoot it. for most citizens I would say that just displaying a fire arm when it is not fired leaves you open to some nasty legal problems in most jurisdictions. some far more then others of course. basicly the same kind of thing that flashing your off duty weapon when its suposed to be carreid concealed would bring, or perhaps worse, depending on the local laws, and climate towards fire arms and people carring them.

 

[jks9199]

well I can tell you in my state that a shooting or killing by an officer, just like by a civilian is subject to reveiw by the district atternys office and the grand jurry. and you have to be able to show the resonable man ( in the ospicis of the ordenary people on that grand jury) that you were in danger of imminent harm or death. the lattitude given for a non martial artist is likely to be wider then for a skilled martial artist or police officer. but the district atternys do tend to be more willing to take a non police officer to the grand jury then in the case of a police officer. now part of that is undoubtedly that most of the police officers have a known track record with the DA. ( of course the PR factor does come in to the mix to in the case of an officer. a child shot for instance, and similer, would just about garrantee grand jurys involvment.)

Where did I ever suggest that any use of force, and especially lethal force, is not subject to appropriate review? I agreed with YOUR contention that police officers get to point guns more often than civilians and in situations that civilians may not be justified to do so; many of the times we have a gun out would constitute illegal brandishing if done by a civilian -- but that doesn't mean that we can wave a gun around negligently or carelessly or without being able to offer any justification at all. And, in many ways, we're held to a higher standard than a civilian. If a civilian has an accidental discharge, they're not facing a possibility of being fired. A cop is...

Shooting review processes vary by department and state, and are well outside the scope of this thread.

I'm not sure what you're argueing at this point. The techniques demonstrated in the video are at the upper end of any use of force, but not outside the scope of legal police use of force, either in Japan or the US. All that is required is that the officer be ab le to justify the level of force they chose to use. And, in truth, that's all that civilian is required to do, as well.

 

[chinto]

Where did I ever suggest that any use of force, and especially lethal force, is not subject to appropriate review? I agreed with YOUR contention that police officers get to point guns more often than civilians and in situations that civilians may not be justified to do so; many of the times we have a gun out would constitute illegal brandishing if done by a civilian -- but that doesn't mean that we can wave a gun around negligently or carelessly or without being able to offer any justification at all. And, in many ways, we're held to a higher standard than a civilian. If a civilian has an accidental discharge, they're not facing a possibility of being fired. A cop is...

Shooting review processes vary by department and state, and are well outside the scope of this thread.

I'm not sure what you're argueing at this point. The techniques demonstrated in the video are at the upper end of any use of force, but not outside the scope of legal police use of force, either in Japan or the US. All that is required is that the officer be ab le to justify the level of force they chose to use. And, in truth, that's all that civilian is required to do, as well.

I guess i was just trying to make sure that every one understood that once a gun comes out the legal **** hits the fan big time. but other wise i agree absolutly with you as far as that vid.. most of the techs used would get a cop in a lot of trouble, even provably if it was fairly justified.. just look at the hell that brakes loose if they use a batton to strike thighs and arms!!