Have to share a comment here. The frequent "rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 line" irritates me in that many people think that gives them a free pass . . . it doesn't.
Do I agree with the statement? Insofar as it relates to an encounter in that moment. Absolutely. I will do whatever I need to survive and deal with the aftermath later, but I will come out of it.
However, to think that gives you a free pass to ignore the legal ramifications of your actions, as well as any moral or ethical ones that you may subscribe to, is to be woefully ill-prepared. American Kenpo (and Shaolin Kempo as well) is an art filled with ridiculous techniques of felonious proportions. Ever seen Leap of Death? How about Back Breaker? Heck, even the popular Five Swords? Most techniques will stop an opponent in the first two or three movements if done correctly, but there are seven or ten movements left. You don't break the guy's arm and knock him out, you then proceed to break the arm three different directions, blow out his knee, snap a neck, dislocate a shoulder and then jump on the guy's kidneys. If you don't recognize the potential, you quickly move from defender, protecting yourself legally in self-defense, to assailant, carrying on an assault with skilled training. In fact, the mere fact that you've trained and had the chance to understand your actions places additional culpability on it. That's not to say you have less rights than the untrained citizen, but the chance of your defense being "I didn't know!" is drastically reduced. Add to that comments that are made in public forums, and you can easily end up Bubba's cellmate because you decided that challenging and inviting was the way to go.
You have to understand potential ramifications for everything you do, at least in your preparation for it. It's the same as ignoring the ground in your self-defense training. A critical element of self-defense is understanding where the law puts its limits. And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it, but generally it's simple:
1) You are allowed to terminate the threat to your well-being (or those under your care).
2) You are allowed to use an amount of force that is reasonable to the level of threat. (Lethal force against a push is not reasonable . . . but pulling a gun when they've got a knife, sounds reasonable to me!)
3) Once the threat to your well being is terminated (person is in a heaped pile after the opening of Five Swords), you are no longer allowed to pursue any course of violence. To do so puts you as the aggressor.
Pretty simple, and pretty easy to be aware of. You train with eye gouges, weapon disarms and reuse, multiple breaks, chokes, etc. and don't understand that for a push it's not appropriate. You deserve to be tried by 12 and lose freedom as a criminal.
I know probably many of the people that make this statement are thinking of it this way, but I've run into my fair share of people that don't, and I like to make sure they understand.
As to the earlier comments made about stepping up to a challenge, backing down, and problems with either or any response in the spectrum, I will say this.
My usual response is comedy. It works for me.
"You think you can take me?"
Where would you like to go?
Some people work better with a eerily confident Yes, why? that can easily disarm an opponent's will. Others, it's better to say something like Probably not. In the right circumstances, with the right person saying it with the right attitude, and the right person hearing it, it all works. I've used every one of those response when the situation called for it. It doesn't mean you crawl into a hole and are scared to come out, but it also doesn't mean you are looking for a fight. I do completely disagree with the attitude of encouraging the fight immediately to test their resolve. As a blanket attitude and statement to the situation, it ignores the very human variable elements. I would tend to think in many cases, it can and will end in a bad way - and any fight will end in a bad way in some manner. Is it appropriate in some cases? Yes, but I would not think the majority of them.
Do I agree with the statement? Insofar as it relates to an encounter in that moment. Absolutely. I will do whatever I need to survive and deal with the aftermath later, but I will come out of it.
However, to think that gives you a free pass to ignore the legal ramifications of your actions, as well as any moral or ethical ones that you may subscribe to, is to be woefully ill-prepared. American Kenpo (and Shaolin Kempo as well) is an art filled with ridiculous techniques of felonious proportions. Ever seen Leap of Death? How about Back Breaker? Heck, even the popular Five Swords? Most techniques will stop an opponent in the first two or three movements if done correctly, but there are seven or ten movements left. You don't break the guy's arm and knock him out, you then proceed to break the arm three different directions, blow out his knee, snap a neck, dislocate a shoulder and then jump on the guy's kidneys. If you don't recognize the potential, you quickly move from defender, protecting yourself legally in self-defense, to assailant, carrying on an assault with skilled training. In fact, the mere fact that you've trained and had the chance to understand your actions places additional culpability on it. That's not to say you have less rights than the untrained citizen, but the chance of your defense being "I didn't know!" is drastically reduced. Add to that comments that are made in public forums, and you can easily end up Bubba's cellmate because you decided that challenging and inviting was the way to go.
You have to understand potential ramifications for everything you do, at least in your preparation for it. It's the same as ignoring the ground in your self-defense training. A critical element of self-defense is understanding where the law puts its limits. And you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it, but generally it's simple:
1) You are allowed to terminate the threat to your well-being (or those under your care).
2) You are allowed to use an amount of force that is reasonable to the level of threat. (Lethal force against a push is not reasonable . . . but pulling a gun when they've got a knife, sounds reasonable to me!)
3) Once the threat to your well being is terminated (person is in a heaped pile after the opening of Five Swords), you are no longer allowed to pursue any course of violence. To do so puts you as the aggressor.
Pretty simple, and pretty easy to be aware of. You train with eye gouges, weapon disarms and reuse, multiple breaks, chokes, etc. and don't understand that for a push it's not appropriate. You deserve to be tried by 12 and lose freedom as a criminal.
I know probably many of the people that make this statement are thinking of it this way, but I've run into my fair share of people that don't, and I like to make sure they understand.
As to the earlier comments made about stepping up to a challenge, backing down, and problems with either or any response in the spectrum, I will say this.
My usual response is comedy. It works for me.
"You think you can take me?"
Where would you like to go?
Some people work better with a eerily confident Yes, why? that can easily disarm an opponent's will. Others, it's better to say something like Probably not. In the right circumstances, with the right person saying it with the right attitude, and the right person hearing it, it all works. I've used every one of those response when the situation called for it. It doesn't mean you crawl into a hole and are scared to come out, but it also doesn't mean you are looking for a fight. I do completely disagree with the attitude of encouraging the fight immediately to test their resolve. As a blanket attitude and statement to the situation, it ignores the very human variable elements. I would tend to think in many cases, it can and will end in a bad way - and any fight will end in a bad way in some manner. Is it appropriate in some cases? Yes, but I would not think the majority of them.
