Teaching Lethal techniques?

[tmanifold]

I was trying to come up with a training syllabus for a basic self preservation course. I had all the usual techniques, the mental aspect and the scenario based training. Then I encounterd a problem. I had included in my techniques two neck breaking head locks. I started to wonder, this is only a short course should I be teching lethal techniques to people I am only going to know for a short time? Should I keep this for an advanced class?

The techniques probably don't need to be there. I think they are good techniques and have a variety of applications but I worry that techniques design to paralyze or kill shouldn't be part of a basic self preservation course.

What to you think? I would like to hear both the teacher and student prospective on this, please. Would you as a teacher feel comfortable teaching this to someone you don't really know? Or as a student do you think that potentally lethal techniques should be inculded in basic courses?

Tony

 

[Shinzu]

i feel the basics shoud be just that. if a student wants to persue the martial arts and the time comes when they are able to handle the responsibilities of these deadly techniques, then i would teach it to them.

as a student i would say "wow, cool.. deadly techniques!", but i don't feel i would be mature enough to handle them and decide when and where i should use them. especially if i was a novice.

it is the teachers decision to decide what and when he/she teaches things.

i dont think these things should belong to beginner students.

 

[tmanifold]

In case I wasn't clear enough, I think I should clarify that this is a self preservation course not part of a martial art. I don't know if it matters but I thought I should clear that up.


Tony

 

[muayThaiPerson]

I would say that you keep it for an advanced class. Because a neck breaking technique isnt something a beginner should learn. Besides, it would be useless because no one has the mentallity to kill.

 

[tmanifold]

Originally posted by muayThaiPerson

I would say that you keep it for an advanced class. Because a neck breaking technique isnt something a beginner should learn. Besides, it would be useless because no one has the mentallity to kill.

I don't agree with you that "no one has the mentallity to kill" but the point stands.

Tony

ps. read my article on Am I able to kill at http://www.members.shaw.ca/tmanifold/kill.htm
for my veiws on that subject.

 

[sweeper]

if they are simple leave them, if complex drop em. in basic self preservation class things should be simple and in my opinion that's the only concern.

if someone wants to kill another they don't need a neack break to do it, you can kill someone with almost anything, I mean even if you just beat them up and stomp on their head a bunch.. if someone dies from a tech you teach someone else it isn't your doing, if there isn't just cause for it odds are they could have killed the person in any number of other ways.

in a self preservation class the goal is to preserve your life, I can see some cases where a neck break could be usefull for that purpose.. I think if you have just cause to fear for your life than you have just cause to use lethal force..

I would also point out under the stress of a life and death situation people are gona botch techniques, so It's best to have realy dammaging techniques that don't require presision because new fighters won't have it. I think neck breaks fall into that catagory, but even than a student posably maybe even probably won't get it off right, in that case If the attacker realises what the student just tried to do, maybe they will re-think the situation a little more.

All in All, I don't think practicing martial arts will build maturity or responsability, that comes from other things, I don't even think it's much of an issue with deadly techniques, anyone should know it isn't that difficult to kill another.

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by tmanifold


What to you think? I would like to hear both the teacher and student prospective on this, please. Would you as a teacher feel comfortable teaching this to someone you don't really know? Or as a student do you think that potentally lethal techniques should be inculded in basic courses?

Tony

I don't think that neck breaking should be are part of it. A broken neck mostly means a dead person, or a serious handicapped person. I don't whant to put a person who's not menatally ready to take responsability for his/her own actions, to do this. As a MA I believe that with time you mentally grow and understand what your are doing. But a person direct from the street, should be put into that situation.

I know then people will say; but what if the situation needs it. Well, you can always say that.. what if. But evolution isnt done in 1 day. By that I mean they have to mentally and pysically(sp?) evolve themselves. Just the technicle part, is hard to do the neck break on a "bull dog".

/Yari

 

[Humble artist]

That´s an important thing to think about.
Maybe you should drop some of the most deadly techniques.
I´m not sure and I´m just wondering here but I´ll create this kind of an example.
Let´s imagine you are caught in a headlock from the side (basic headlock) while you could handle it as a non-lethal technique and be kind,it still seems to have some lethal potential:
-if he tries to muscle you into a throw,he may damage your spinal cord.
-it can be hard on your neck
-if he squuezes hard enough he may seal your jugular vein.
-he may strike your face/head

Then let´s pick some defenses for this headlock:
-if he grabs you with one hand only (enough to control your head) you can pull of a technique called "ikkyo" (jujutsu/aikido based elbow&wrist pin) you can free yourself completely leaving him in helples position,if you wish to follow more jujutsu like ways,you may dislocate his elbow (immobolizing his arm and causing exruciating pain) this kind of technique can also be found from kenpo karate.
-In this example he grabs you with both of his hands (supporting his locking hand with his free hand) now we will use a defense which goes about the lines of karate,jujutsu or kenpo.
You use your other hand to rake down on his eyes,then fall on one knee and hammerfist him to testicles.
Again,this one was quite tough on him.
-Then in this next example you will simply place the edge of your closer hand (knifehand) steadily under attackers nose and push backwards,making him fall (alternatively,if he won´t fall,his neck will break sooner or later)
This example sounds somewhat harmonious if compared to others (I picked this one from TKD) but has some lethal potential which even the previous ones may not carry.

There is no direct point in this post,I´m just arising some thoughts.
I guess it´s up to you to choose what you think is proper.
I hope I helped a bit.
:asian:

BTW,you may just as well grab his inside thigh and squueze as hard as you can.

 

[7starmantis]

I just tend to think that basic life preservation should be just that. Most sefl defense courses rest on defense. NEck breaking techniques and such are offensive, and can be complicated. For someone who is defending their life, with no real MA training, a complicated offensive technique is likely to confuse them. I would stick to basic defensive, grab breaks, kicks, strikes, things like that. Thats just my humble opinion.



7sm

 

[Chiduce]

A Teachers Point: If it was just a one course thing and i was charging for the course, then it would be my duty as an instructor to teach what i felt would be the best avenue for my students survival. If this included lethal techniques, then they should be addressed. Yet, i would select them on a need to know basis at first. I would not use the most deadly techniques, but techniques which would handle the rough spots that the students would probably experience. I would emphasize breaking though; yet breaking of more of the extended natural weapons. Fingers, Clavicle, Ribs, Elbows, Knees, Ankles and if necessary strikes to the spinal area's could be employed by the new students. Tearing eye muscle and surrounding tissue rakes, gouges, claws and thumbs would be the main method of attacker distraction (suki) to lead the defender to the finishing breaks for escaping. I would also keep an open door policy, giving each student my name, number, and access to my knowledge in their individual areas of survival skills.

As a student i would want the roughest basics that i could get. If this meant potentially fatally injuring an attacker, then i would have to except that. Yet, i would expect the instructor to control that side of my teachings. I would respect what he/she had given me as tool's for survival.
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Chiduce

As a student i would want the roughest basics that i could get. If this meant potentially fatally injuring an attacker, then i would have to except that. Yet, i would expect the instructor to control that side of my teachings. I would respect what he/she had given me as tool's for survival.
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

Arn't you now expecting that all students think like you, and have the experience that you have.

What kind of people come to a class like this? What's their expectations?

/Yari

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Yari



Arn't you now expecting that all students think like you, and have the experience that you have.

What kind of people come to a class like this? What's their expectations?

/Yari

Exactly, I think the student who comes to a one day, or weekend course on self defense is looking for the basic of techniques that they can ingrain in their heads to use in situations that warrent them. MOST people when faced with a life or death situation will not remember their own name, let alone a complicated offensive technique to break someone neck or spine. Most women who take the course don'w even want this, they just want to break a grab, kick out a knee and get away. I think that by teaching them something they will not remember and even if they do remember, will not be able to perform correctly, is not only waisting their time and money on yoru course, but gives them a false sense of security as well, and I just don't feel thats right.


JMHO,

7sm

 

[Chiduce]

Originally posted by Yari



Arn't you now expecting that all students think like you, and have the experience that you have.

What kind of people come to a class like this? What's their expectations?

/Yari

Not exactly. I do feel that those who would consider taking a survival course would have a real purpose for doing so. I know that there will always be those with the financial resources to do what they want. Yet, the majority of those wanting the training will probably need it. I also hope that this post is not a typical terrorist survival thing where people are training against the state, races of peoples, or governments. Anyway, from my experience most whom would consider this type of training come from areas of the city where violence is evident and have to live and raise children. This type of course would be offered as a quick alternative to lengthy martial arts training, due to financial troubles. I would be very skeptical of someone wanting survival training if they had a large amount of money to pay for the course. There are ninjutsu camps, etc for this type of training; which would take 1 to 6 months or more.
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Chiduce

Not exactly. I do feel that those who would consider taking a survival course would have a real purpose for doing so. I know that there will always be those with the financial resources to do what they want. Yet, the majority of those wanting the training will probably need it. I also hope that this post is not a typical terrorist survival thing where people are training against the state, races of peoples, or governments. Anyway, from my experience most whom would consider this type of training come from areas of the city where violence is evident and have to live and raise children. This type of course would be offered as a quick alternative to lengthy martial arts training, due to financial troubles. I would be very skeptical of someone wanting survival training if they had a large amount of money to pay for the course. There are ninjutsu camps, etc for this type of training; which would take 1 to 6 months or more.
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

I don't agree at all. I think people from all walks of life, and all areas feel the need to take self dfense courses. I live in the heart of the bible belt, in a smaller town, that has a very high majority of wealthy, "uppity class" people, still there is a great demand for womens self defense classes, and basic self defense courses. Everyone wants to feel safe, not just those who live in unsafe conditions. Also, just because someone has a large amount of money to pay, doesn't mean that also have the desire to go thorugh a MA camp, or nijitsu camp. Maybe they are only interested in MA as a self defense class could teach.



7sm

 

[Yari]

Originally posted by Chiduce

Anyway, from my experience most whom would consider this type of training come from areas of the city where violence is evident and have to live and raise children. Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

OK, we don't have this kind of problems in scandinavia, but I still think that a normal being would have a hard time handling that they killed a person even if they needed to.

Look at car accidents. Even people who had no intention at all to lame or kill somebody else can suddendly be in that situationen and have to live with it. And it's not easy, even if it wasn't you mistake. The thoughts pile up: could I have done something else, or another way, or learned something else.

I would never teach anybody this until they have shown that they can handle it, both when to do it, and that they have done it.

But we can disagree, no problem there!

/Yari

 

[Chiduce]

I understand your point in that case. Yet, as a typical rule of teaching for myself. There would have to be very good reason for a student taking one to three courses when the individual could have a life long experience with learning and teaching others. Don't get me wrong though; i offer a basic clandestine combatives course for those types of individuals. The course is not financially straining and the student can progress at a consistant pace with their natural abilities. Yet, this is a cerificate course and not considered a part of the martial arts styles which i teach by itself. And yes, all people do have a right to learn and train for the right reasons!
Sincerely, In Humility;
Chiduce!

 

[tonbo]

I would toss my vote in with those who say to "hold off".

There are plenty of techniques that people can learn for self preservation without having to go the neck-breaking route. At our school, I know of at least four techniques that are intermediate level techniques and have neck breaks. We teach these techniques regardless, but, in most cases, the neck breaks are subtly glossed over--essentially, they are hidden in the technique. Only after someone has learned the basics of the technique and can handle it do we "expose" the break.

This is not to say that many adults can't handle neck breaking techniques--they can. However, as an example: if you teach a firearm safety class, are you going to teach sniper techniques? Probably not. But you WILL teach people what they will need to survive. Neck breaks may be cool, and the techniques themselves may work like a charm......but leave the esoteric things like the obvious neck breaks out.

I would say this as both teacher *and* student. If I were going to a preservation course, I might like the trivia of knowing what breaks could be done, but I would want to focus on what I could do quickly, efficiently, and legally. If I can get someone off of me long enough for me to get the hell out of there, all the better. I may not like my attacker, and I don't want to sit around a campfire roasting marshmallows and singing spirituals, but I would also not rather go to sleep at night knowing that I paralyzed or killed someone because they were being an idiot.

As always, just my 2 cents' worth......your mileage may vary....

Peace--

 

[jkn75]

I agree with what has been said up to this point.

I would like to add something to the legal aspects of lethal techniques. In a short class you want to show quick techniques that are effective.

A lethal techniques carries all sorts of legal consequences for the person executing the technique. The results of the situation may take awhile to sort out and the student may find themselves in jail before the situation is ruled self defense. This should all be explained to someone before you teach them something that can kill.

Rather than go through all of these explanations about lethal techniques and when to use them, take that time and work on other techniques.
:asian:

 

[tmanifold]

Thanks for you opinions.

There seems to be some thoughts that I should leave out the complecated techniques. I agree, the moves I am thinking of are so simple the village idiot could do them. I am more concerned with the moral aspect and possibly the legal.


Tony