The Kenpo "knife fantasy" - a deadly dream

[Cruentus]

What you are saying in your last post doesn't counterdict anything I am saying. My first option is to run or avoid the encounter as well. BUT that doesn't mean that you shouldn't carry a knife because you'll either just run, or he'll have the drop on you so it won't mater anyways. With this logic, one shouldn't carry anything at all. And, maybe some people would rather not carry anything, and that is fine.

Where I disagree is where you said that a knife was "largely impractical." From the evidence and logic that I provided, I would say that the knife is the "Most practical" to carry, if your trained with it and you are going to carry anything at all.

And sure, in my home I would grab the 12 gauge also...but we are talking "carrying" not in the home.

My problem with your logic is that by what your standards NO WEAPON would be practical to carry, because every weapon would be constrained the same way that you mentioned. I should "run first" no matter what I have; knife, gun, baton, pepper spray, or whatever. But, you said you carry a collapsable baton over a knife. This is fine if you have moral reasons for this. But the legal advantage will vary from state to state (and in my state, the advantage is to carry a blade because batons are illegal). In terms of practicality, the baton is not more practical then the knife, especially if we are talking about weapon deployment. If you took two people, one trained with a baton, and one trained with a tactical folder (including drawing), you'll find that the deployment time is about the same. If the person has a fixed blade in a kidex sheath over the baton, the baton person will lose every time.

Also, one last thing...I didn't say that an aware martial artist would NEVER have the drop laid on him. The message I am trying to convey is that with an aware person, especially someone trained to be aware, the chances are far less that the person will be taken by suprise to the point where they have no time to deploy a weapon.

So with your last post I basically agree with what you said. It was some of the stuff in your other post I disagreed with.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Phil wrote an interesting article titled Forgetting the 'martial' in "Martial Artist".

He addresses weapon carrying in the article, making some interesting points relevent to the topic.

I'll also quote him from the firearms forum...(http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12064&perpage=15&pagenumber=2)

This depends on what one means by "martial." To me, the term speaks to a certain mindset. You can be an effective empty-hand fighter and support gun control, sure -- but you lack a very important mental component. That component is the rationality necessary to recognize effective self-defense tools as tools and not as mechanical monsters waiting in cupboards to jump out and murder the children.

Take, for example, a hypothetical military commander -- a general who believes airplanes cause violence and who therefore does not believe his military force should have air power. He might still be a skilled commander of ground troops and a brilliant infantry tactician -- but he's not a general at all because he has a glaring mental blindspot, an irrational inability to face reality.

A "martial" artist who supports gun control lacks the mindset necessary to be considered martial at all. He or she is some other kind of artist, some sort of technician of certain physical skills.

I think that the same point can be made regarding knives.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I do not agree.

For one thing, "Sharp Phil's," (now there's a monicker appropriate to what I'm about to write) hypothetical situation amounts to the construction of a straw man for him to whup on. I suspect that any general is quite able to distinguish airplanes from, say, bombs.

For another, he's defining "realism," as a willingness--indeed a positive enjoyment--in blowing stuff up and killing people.

For another, we can certainly debate the existence of that little animal that does indeed want to hurt people in all of us. I think it's there.

I realize that this may draw a bit of laughter, but gee, I thought that martial arts taught restraint, ethics, even a little compassion, as well as how to kick ***. And I fail to see what's so bad about the attitude of, "Well, I had to fight, so I took this guy OUT. That's good; I'm OK, and he'll recover. But if I'd been more aware, I could've avoided having to hurt him, or hurt him less maybe? In any case, violence is never good and I should do better next time."

It's gotta be preferable to the remarks I've seen about how easy sticking somebody will be if you just....

I think howardr is on to something here.

 

[Cruentus]

And I fail to see what's so bad about the attitude of, "Well, I had to fight, so I took this guy OUT. That's good; I'm OK, and he'll recover. But if I'd been more aware, I could've avoided having to hurt him, or hurt him less maybe? In any case, violence is never good and I should do better next time."

I see nothing wrong with this at all, and this is the approach we all should take. I guess my problem is I don't see how carrying a tool (knife, gun, whatever) would prevent us from taking the approach.

I can respect someone not wanting to carry a weapon for personal reasons. I have trouble understanding why some people who says they are a martial artist (who don't carry) abhor the idea of someone else carrying a knife or gun for protection. Worse yet, I have trouble with "martial artists" making the ridicules arguement that it would be more practical to not have a weapon around for self defense, even if the attacker has a weapon. This is "fantasy" in my opinion. I mean, if you don't want to carry I can respect that. Yet, to say that I'd be better of with nothing for practical self defense purposes over a knife or gun is insanity.

So far, the only thing that Howardr is on to is overconfidence in fantasy knife empty hand techniques, and paranoia over our Criminal justice system. If your life, or the life of your family is on the line, the last thing you should be worried about is what the judge will say. You'll be worrying about what the judge would say while your getting stabbed or shot yourself.
PAUL

 

[rmcrobertson]

fair enough.

I think the problem is, though, that at least some of the folks who claim to be carrying a knife or a gun all the time sure seem to be fascinated with all the little bells and whistles, in a way I recongize from my own childhood, and they sure seem to be eager to use the damn things.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
fair enough.

I think the problem is, though, that at least some of the folks who claim to be carrying a knife or a gun all the time sure seem to be fascinated with all the little bells and whistles, in a way I recongize from my own childhood, and they sure seem to be eager to use the damn things.

Yea, I agree. I admit to being an enthusiest, but when there reaction to their weapon is akin to a sex addict in a strip club, or a food addict at a Chinese Buffet, then I think that we definatily have a problem.

Being eager to use their tool to harm someone is, well, just plain wrong. I think that our facinsation with violence in this country is gone overboard (and yes, I am serious. So please ignore my signature lines and aviator as I say this ) lol.

 

[psi_radar]

Paul

Yep, we're pretty much in agreement. Let me clarify that I have no problem with anyone else carrying, I'm just stating my moral and personal preference. One reason I sometimes carry a baton (rarely) for SD is because I would feel more comfortable whacking somebody with it than taking a big slice out of them. Personal, moral, and practical preference--I think I'd hesitate less and I prefer it as a weapon in general. The fact that it's not quite as legal as a folding knife is secondary to me.

Here's another thought about deployment of weapons. There are some jobs that are inherently dangerous. To quote Repo Man: "Most people spend their time trying to get out of nasty situations. Repo men spend their time getting INTO them." There are some occupations in which the participants clearly know they're coming into a bad scene, and have the time to contemplate whether or not to bring a weapon into play. In this situation, weapons become much more practical. I'm not one of those people so that colors my opinions.

I think Sharp Phil's op ed, and that's what it is, an opinion, is off base at least where I'm concerned. I believe there is room for restraint in any conflict. In fact, as a trained martial artist I'm more able to exercise that restraint than ever before. The situation dictates the action, but thinking of possibilities I find very few that would necessitate purposeful deadly force.

 

[Cruentus]

Yea...I wish I could carry a ASP baton too. I actually am a better trained with stick techniques then with knife, and I would rather not slice a hunk out of someone myself. Of course, knowing me, if I could carry an ASP baton, I'd also carry a knife or two just in case.

In regards to Phils Op Ed., it was just something to think about. I like Phil, and I like what he writes, but I can't say I am full agreement with everything he says.

I do believe in prudence in self defense situations, and only exerting nessicary force. What I can't stand by is people who are willing to sacrifice their own safety in a self defense circumstance to be prudent. There is a line between nessicary force and dangerously not enough force.

But yea...it looks like we agree on most things here.

 

[parkerkarate]

Don't forget that there are many knives out the such as the K-bar (combat knife). And other things like the Kukari (short sword) and Panthar Sword (Tai-Chi sword).

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
Don't forget that there are many knives out the such as the K-bar (combat knife). And other things like the Kukari (short sword) and Panthar Sword (Tai-Chi sword).

lol. I would totally carry my Kukri on my hip for s**ts and giggles if it was legal! :rofl:

 

[psi_radar]

Hi ParkerKarate,

I think the discussion focused on tactical folders and smaller fixed blades (like Ayoob's model from Masters of Defense and some from Cold Steel) because those are really the only blades you could carry relatively inconspicuously where we live. I think it'd be fun to carry my Kukri, or a fighting Bowie, but unless I'm hunting bear I don't think I have an excuse. Doing so around town would bring PLENTY of unwanted attention.

 

[parkerkarate]

HAHAHA. If you tried to carry a Kukari on your hip you would be arested in no time. It was a weapon that the soldier used in WWII. But that is funny though.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
HAHAHA. If you tried to carry a Kukari on your hip you would be arested in no time. It was a weapon that the soldier used in WWII. But that is funny though.

I know...I got one!

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by PAUL
Essentially it goes like this...if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.

2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.

3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.

So, if I am outside a bar, and someone follows me out with a broken bottle, corners me near my car, yells something nasty, and attacks me with the bottle...guess what? I can legally pull out my gun and shoot him, or pull my knife and kill him. I don't have to prove "I tried to run" or "I gave him my wallet" or what ever. I don't have to run, or give him my wallet, legally speaking (even though this may show the police and the court my intent). If I can prove that the above three factors were present, I can use lethal force.

You see it all depends. It's just not that simple or clear cut (it usually isn't in the Law). First, your argument, while roughly accurate (leaves out important qualifications), ignores my previous point that you may have a duty to retreat depending upon what jurisdiction (read "state") you are in. According to my notes (good as of 2002), 15 jurisdictions want you to retreat if it is safe to do so (even if you are not at fault). So, even in your example you may be in big trouble (i.e., to the contrary you may have to demonstrate that you could not have safely retreated) depending upon in which state the event takes place.

Also, note that I can generate a tremendous number of examples where using a knife in self-defense is much more questionably justifiable than in the scenario you constructed. You see the tough part is that in reality much of the time it isn't so clear cut and often, as I mentioned previously, there are no witnesses, the police arrive after the fact, the DA's office wants to be tough on crime and "vigilantism," and a jury can be swayed by emotional testimony, and here's a dead fellow who has a weeping mother on the stand testifying how her son was a kind and gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly and volunteered at homeless shelters on the weekend (that is when he wasn't drinking at the local watering hole...).

Now, I recommend that we all be prudent with our self defense. Example, even if I have a folder on me, I'll try running away from my attacker unless my family or property is in danger, or unless running would be a useless action (cornered, or in a desolate area).

Again, you are wrong. You say that you can use deadly force to defend your property. As the Court noted in United States v. Peterson (483 F.2d 1222, 1973), "The law never tolerates the use of deadly force in the protection of one's property." Modernly, there are no jurisdictions that allow the use of deadly force in defense of property. According to your argument, however, if a man tries to grab your wallet, but hasn't himself attempted to use or threatened deadly force against you, you are entitled to slice him up into hamburger meat - wrong! You'll find yourself in a cold cell for a very long time if you take that route. Or, what if you are walking back from the mall and you spot in the distance someone breaking into your car in the parking lot. Can you simply shoot them, as your statement seems to clearly indicate, because your property is in danger? Hopefully, you would not, but your statement says that deadly force is justified if your property is in danger.

I maintain my stance that if the proper legalities are followed, knives are useful self defense tools.

You're begging the question. Whether the proper legalities are being followed is precisely what is at issue. And, I maintain that that your understanding of the proper legalities is flawed as is your application of those legal principles. This is not a minor point but literally has life altering implications. Please, put aside your emotional investment and think cooly and rationally about these issues.

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by PAUL
I don't study Kenpo.

I think this might have been part of the problem with this whole discussion. It seems that both you and MJS come from a FMA background rather than a Kenpo background. Not that I don't appreciate your point of view, your art, or generally where you are coming from, because I do, but rather my initial concern involved some things that I think are Kenpo specific. In other words, your FMA knife work may very well be quite different from what concerned me with what I saw being advocated in Kenpo. Actually, in some of the elaborations that you and MJS provided it sounds (and I have admittedly NO FMA experience) that what you are doing is really not what I was worried about. I was concerned with what I saw in Kenpo and that dealt with knife work that literally carved up a human being like a side of beef ala Hannibal Lechter (sic?), in a fashion that might not even be appropriate to a battlefield.

 

[parkerkarate]

Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know.

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know.

Excellent question! That's both a very easy and at the same time an extremely vexing question to answer.

THE EASY: deadly force is basically just what it sounds like

My own cursory definition would be something like: physical compulsion used in a manner causing or capable of causing death. For example, shooting a gun at someone, stabbing someone with a knife, hitting them over the head with a baseball bat, chopping someone on the back of the neck, etc. Now, if you wanted to get technical, you might look at "physical force," as that which physically (as opposed to mentally) impinges, alters, moves, or modifies another. "Deadly," I've already defined above as roughly that which causes or is capable of causing death.

Of course, it can get a bit circular as "compulsion" is really almost synonymous with "force." I'd argue that to be fully accurate, something like the concept "force," while possible to describe conceptually, should be defined ostensively by pointing to examples in reality (as above, gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.).

THE HARD: how to apply it

All of the above is fine and dandy but doesn't help you much. To really understand what is meant by deadly force in a legal context, and more importantly for it to be of some practical use in determining your own legally valid response to a particular situation, you ought to read and think about a good number of actual cases. You need to immerse yourself in the myriad of facts, the often subtle differences between the cases, and the legal analyses the courts provide. After a time, you'd start to get an appreciation of what is really going on, and it may make you a little "paranoid," (I'd say more like "prudent" rather than "reckless") as I've been labeled recently. Short of attending law school, taking criminal law classes, etc., you might try reading a few simple treatises. One in particular that you might want to peruse would be Carl Brown's "The Law and Martial Arts." It's filled with excerpts and descriptions of cases involving martial arts and self-defense that you may find illuminating as well as discussion of general legal principles.

Please feel free to ask any other questions you have. I do enjoy this topic. I'll try my best to answer them according to my own understanding.

Thanks, Howard

ps, I think it's exceptional that you are interested and concerned with this topic, esp. as an instructor. You may very well (I'd say most likely) be judged by a higher standard if you ever have to use your skills and someone is hurt or killed. Becoming an expert in the martial arts has its obvious advantages (for one it increases the liklihood we'll live to see another day), but like many things has its share of disadvantages ("oh, so you're an expert in self-defense, so you should have had control, and you knew exactly what you were doing didn't you!")

 

[parkerkarate]

To me you sound like a lawyer or you just have a really high I.Q. But thank you very much for the information. Now I know someone else I can ask questions to know, thank you again.

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
To me you sound like a lawyer or you just have a really high I.Q. But thank you very much for the information. Now I know someone else I can ask questions to know, thank you again.

*Blushing* Thanks, but I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not (the part about sounding like a lawyer)!!! I'm trying to be clear and not engage in too much legalese. Unfortunately, given the complexities of the legal system and in reality, that is not always completely possible.

 

[howardr]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
Howardr could you please explain to me what deadly force would be concidered to be? I am always afraid if I ever get into a fight that I may go over board and hurt someone, because alot of the stuff that we do in Kenpo is not the nicest stuff, as we all know.

I just had another thought on this. Your concerns are one of the reasons (out of many) that I think Dr. Chapel's approach to Kenpo is highly valuable. Try explaining to the nice officer why you killed a man who put his hand on your shoulder by chopping him in the throat (Sword & Hammer). In my view, a systematic approach to self-defense should amply consider the legal (and moral) consequences of employing said defenses. Otherwise, is it really "self-defense?" Yeah, you might have survived the moment but now you are in jail and you've lost all of your assets. So, in the end you really haven't defended yourself all that well.