The Kenpo "knife fantasy" - a deadly dream

[MJS]

Originally posted by howardr
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.

Yeah, you're right on that one. Regarding the chop to the throat. The majority of Kenpo techs. all contain devastating moves...kick to the groin, hit to the neck,eye...and the list goes on and on. Sure, people sit there and say that you can adjust the techs. to meet the situation. Ok. So take lone kimono. Do you need to break the guys arm or can you just do an armlock?? Heres a question to ask yourself. How many times to you actually do that in your training. What I'm referring to is the controlling moves, or do you just go with the tech. as its written? I feel that its important to have a good background in locking and controlling tehcs. Not every situation is gonna warrant a hit to the throat, but if the locks are not something that you do on a regualr basis, chances are, that you're not gonna be thinking about that. Instead, you'll be thinking of that eye gouge, arm break, etc. I crosstrain in Arnis, which I feel gives me a much better understanding of the locks. Therefore, I think that I would have a much easier time adjusting the tech to fit the situation. And no, I'm NOT saying that everybody should run out and learn Arnis or start to CT. Just thought I'd throw that in before someone misunderstands what I'm saying!!!!!!

Just a thought.

Mike

 

[parkerkarate]

thats exactly what I was trying to get at Howardr.

 

[Cruentus]

I know that there are a lot of pretty screwy state laws on the books that makes self defense much more difficult then it should be. Case in point, I know that in Buffalo, NY, if someone attacks you with a knife (for instance) that could justify deadly force. But, if you manage to disarm his knife, or if he drops it and you pick it up, he is weaponless and your armed now, so deadly force is not justified. This means that even if he is still trying to kill you with his bare hands, you could get locked up for using the knife on him that he used to attack you in the first place! Pretty screwed up, eh?

I am not a lawyer (yet). And just because someone is a lawyer, that doesn't mean they know about this issue, anyways. But that doesn't mean that I am completely ignorant on the subject. That doesn't mean that I haven't been to the legal library to look some of these things up. That doesn't mean I haven't been on both sides of the witness table for violent encounters. That doesn't mean that I haven't had to talk to both prosecuting attorneys and defence attorneys, and that doesn't mean that I haven't had to fill out police reports. I have had to do all of these things, so yes, I am very interested in the subject, just like you.

Now in regards to my criteria, I agree with you that nothing is black and white in the eyes of the law. Also, I advocate fleeing in every circumstance that this is a possability! I never said don't run away, because on the contrary, you should. But, I will say that many times if all three criteria are met, running isn't a viable option. "He pulled the knife. I was completely scared, I backed up to run, but he closed in on me so fast that I couldn't flee. In a panic and fear for my life as I way being slashed at, and I was trying to get away, I pulled out many gun and shot him." Who knows what the circumstance will be, but you ALWAYS try to flee and you ALWAYS say you tried to flee in your report.

You always try to flee, unless you can't. I didn't mention this because I figured that this was a given; it seems just common sense to me. I forget that some people who induldge in warrior fantasy might not consider this the viable option that it is.

But despite me forgetting to mention that yea, if you can run, do so (duh), my criteria for deadly force is a good general one to follow. Most human beings who might have to defend themselves aren't attorneys, and most attorneys couldn't recite all the laws and facts that apply to self defense anyways. There are a lot of laws, and I garauntee that you won't know your @$$ from a hole, let alone what's what in terms of the law if your truely being attacked. This means that we need simple stupid concepts that will keep you out of trouble no matter what state your in. Knowing what constitutes deadly force by my general criteria is a good start. A second thing (that I forgot to mention) is knowing the proper level of response if deadly force is justifiable (basically its #1 flee, #2 pull your weapon #3 pick something up and use it as a weapon, #4 use your bare hands; verbal comands are included in all steps). If you know a few of these things, you can stay safe.

And you mention some different possabilities that could occur even if you follow the prudent criteria for self defense. The fact is, howard, you can do everything right and still end up in jail. I'll repeat what you said in that is a valid point; nothing is black and white. THis is in law or self defense. I think that a lot of modern day warrior-wannabe's who glorify in "martial fantasy" forget that violence is a dirty and horrable thing, and there is always negative consequence. There is no glorification in violence. Even if you manage to live through a violent encounter, there are legal reprocussions, revenge issues, as well as emotional and psychological issues that could haunt you for the rest of your life. It's unrealistic to expect that a violent encounter will end in any other way other then bad, even if you make it out alive.

I think that there are other people on the other side of the fence who engage in "martial-paranoia." They are so concerned with the laws, and other issues like the morality of not hurting their fellow man, that they are willing to put themselves in danger to avoid any possible legal/moral reprocussions. They would never carry a gun or a knife, and are usually advocates of knife and gun control as they scream to their peers the evils of carrying a weapon. If there was a knife on the counter and someone was going to rape and kill their wives or children, they would be too busy trying to figure out if they should call the police first, flee, use their bare hands, or what have you, and they would be wondering over the legal reprocussions of any of it. Their irrational fear of the law and weapons could cost them or their family their lives if anything were to ever happend. This paranoia is about as irrational as "martial fantasy," and for the same reasons. The reason is that they are forgetting that Violent encounters never end up any other way other then bad. You only have control over how bad it will be. The reality is, you could do all the prudent things to the point where you even cause injury to yourself, and you could still end up in jail.

So whats the solution? Know good, prudent, self defense. Thats the first step. Knowing how to avoid, how to spot danger, and how to flee. Knowing what you should do, and what constitutes lethal force are also important things. Knowing your state laws can be helpful, and I do recommend finding these out, especially if your going to carry a weapon. However, the law is the last thing you can really worry about if your life is on the line.

So, Howard, are you engaging in "martial-paranoia," or are you just interested in the laws, and rebuttling "martial fantasy"? I can't tell from your few posts, which is why I am asking.

PAUL
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Howardr,

I am not looking to educate as much as I am always looking to learn!

I am confused on the property issue. 1st off, I should have never said property in my post, because my personal belief is to give up your wallet, car, or flee you home before using deadly force. "Things" can be recovered, while lives can't be.

But, I am curious about the legal portion of defending ones property. I thought if someone were to break into my home, I could shoot them? I thought that americans have the right to defend our property? I realize that you sited a case law, and it looks federal to me, but how does this fit in with the above? Are there other case laws to counter this (as there often are)? I am curious about this issue now.

If you can refer me to a source, or answer with good evidence, I'd like to hear what you know.

Thanks,

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

I wasn't begging the question, I was making a point. The point is that what you need to know if your going to carry a weapon is the legal issues regarding it. You need to know what you can carry legally, what constitutes lethal force, and some of the laws regarding carrying and use of a blade. If you know the issues (which will vary from state to state) then you will know what you can and can't do and you can apply it appropriately.

I attatched a link to a website that illustrates the state laws.

You implyed that using a blade (offensive knife work) for self defense will land you in jail. I say that if you abide by the law, like a gun, you can carry and use it for self defense. I am not begging the question. If you want to talk about all the different laws per state, fine, go at it. But remember what your original implication was before you you accuse me of begging the question.

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Howardr,

You are correct, I don't know what techniques are being advocated.

But, I find that the techniques don't really matter. Using a knife is just like using a gun. To use the weapon, deadly force needs to be justified. This means that whether you only slash the hand of your attacker, or if you stab and rip his throat out with the blade, it is considered deadly force. So I find that the actual technique doesn't matter, its the use of the weapon or not.

Now granted, you may have more trouble with the law if you kill the guy rather then just slice, but that will depend on the circumstance.

The fact is, a knife for defense should be treated like a gun, so the technique is generally obsolete in terms of the law.

PAUL

 

[parkerkarate]

As much as I love knives, I do not think I would carry one, having almost 200 some techniques, I think qualiffies me enough not to carry one but, yea if I took it away from the person some how. I could use it, but you need to be careful, just because you know hoe to use it doen't mean you need to use excesive force. I am not trying to be mean but you seem to be getting mad and it all started after I posted that messege for Howrdr. I might just be reading into it to much, if so I am sorry.

 

[Cruentus]

this thread developed too far before I could check it.

This should be my last multiple post.

Howardr,

I double checked something after I responded to you rebuking my criteria for deadly force. In the first page of this thread, I advocated running as a first response if you are empty hand against knife. So I didn't exactly forget anything; as I have always said, if you can flee, do so.

Another thing: In regards to practicing "offensive" techniques.... wouldn't you say that to know how to defend against a knife fighter who is trying to kill you, or trying to use offensive techniques against you, that you should know how these techniques work and the mentality behind them for your defense to be effective? If so, then wouldn't that justify practicing these techniques...for proper defense?

Just something for you to think about.

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by parkerkarate
As much as I love knives, I do not think I would carry one, having almost 200 some techniques, I think qualiffies me enough not to carry one but, yea if I took it away from the person some how. I could use it, but you need to be careful, just because you know hoe to use it doen't mean you need to use excesive force. I am not trying to be mean but you seem to be getting mad and it all started after I posted that messege for Howrdr. I might just be reading into it to much, if so I am sorry.

LOL theres some smileys! Please forgive me, for I am very blunt, so sometimes on the internet I come accross as angry.

I am not angry at all, and I think it is a good discussion, even if I don't fully agree with some of the views presented.

I fully respect it if you don't want to carry a weapon. I think that you should thing about this, though: knowing 200 techniques doesn't mean that the average street trash can't take you out with the 1 or 2 dirty tricks that they have been "Doing" to victims, rather then practicing as you or I do.

I have found in my 19 years of study in the Martial arts that it doesn't matter how many techniques you know. Weapons are equalizers to problems that may go beyond the techniques that I know. I chose to carry because I know that one day I might need that equalizer.

I fully respect it though if you don't want to carry a weapon, but these are just things to think about.

:asian:

 

[parkerkarate]

I respect that and I agree with you that knowing 200 some techinqes won't always save my life, but I am just a little too afraid of carrying a K-bar (combat knife) around college and get in trouble for it.

 

[Cruentus]

I respect that and I agree with you that knowing 200 some techinqes won't always save my life, but I am just a little too afraid of carrying a K-bar (combat knife) around college and get in trouble for it.

lol yea I wouldn't do that either...unless hunting is allowed on your campus, and you can prove thats what its for!

I always recommend carrying something legal that can multipurpose for utility and self defense. My executive folder has only an inch and a half blade, and I can use it for a lot of little tasks other then defense. Yet, an inch in a half of sharp in trained hands can be a great deterent if one is needed!

:asian:

 

[parkerkarate]

lol thats great

 

[howardr]

So, Howard, are you engaging in "martial-paranoia," or are you just interested in the laws, and rebuttling "martial fantasy"? I can't tell from your few posts, which is why I am asking.

PAUL
:asian:

Paul,

I'd like to think that I'm simply raising some issues that seem to me may not be well considered by many practitioners (particularly some Kenpo knife-maniacs). So, I wouldn't considered myself to be the "martial-paranoid" type you've described. I'm only trying to open a few eyes by suggesting that certain self-defense strategies may backfire when the smoke clears (even if they get you out of the immediate situation). Just be careful and prudent and be aware that the legal system may not comport with your own sense of justice and fairplay. You, however, sound like the sort that I'm NOT talking about. I'd venture to say that you have a thought-out gameplay. And, as GI Joe would often say, "Knowing is half the battle!"

Cobra Commander Out

 

[howardr]

Howardr,

I am confused on the property issue. 1st off, I should have never said property in my post, because my personal belief is to give up your wallet, car, or flee you home before using deadly force. "Things" can be recovered, while lives can't be.

But, I am curious about the legal portion of defending ones property. I thought if someone were to break into my home, I could shoot them? I thought that americans have the right to defend our property? I realize that you sited a case law, and it looks federal to me, but how does this fit in with the above? Are there other case laws to counter this (as there often are)? I am curious about this issue now.

If you can refer me to a source, or answer with good evidence, I'd like to hear what you know.

Thanks,

PAUL

Well, let's see...

First, the little that I provided previously on this issue (i.e., the basic elements of self-defense) came from notes from a first-year Crim Law class taught by a former Los Angeles prosecutor. I should note, however, that she did not spend a considerable amount of time on self-defense (at least not as much as I would have liked).

The professor stated categorically that under the law defense of property never justified the use of deadly force. (Deadly force may be used in the defense of property only if it is in conjunction with another privileged use of force.) I found the case and quote about defense of property in Dressler's Criminal Law (2nd ed.). The casebook contains other cases covering self-defense, but the one I quoted was used to elucidate the general principles of self-defense as found in contemporary American jurisprudence.

Second, note that I specified above - deadly force. You're combining two distinct concepts. You talk about both using deadly force (e.g., shooting) to defend property and also in the next sentence about the right to defend property. Actually, the essential point and crucial distinction is that while you don't have a right to use deadly force to defend property, you can use nondeadly force to defend both personal and real property in your possession. Note: you can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a crime, if the crime is a "dangerous felony" involving risk to human life (e.g., robbery, arson, burglary of a dwelling, etc.).

The BARBRI bar review for Crim Law also verifies these principles. I'd be happy to give you some additional case citations, if that's what you're looking for.

Finally, I'd like to clarify the issue about the use of deadly force in the home. The issue is not that you have the right to use deadly force (remember we already said that you could use nondeadly force in this situation, but that's not what we are considering) to defend your property (your home), but that you do not have a requirement to retreat when you are in your home, if you meet all the elements granting a self-defense justification, before you employ deadly force.

So, if you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of breaking glass, get out of bed, grab your shotgun and see a drooling escapee from the local mental hospital in your living room walking towards you armed with a butcher knife, you don't have to run - you can shoot the intruder. Remember: the majority of states have no duty to retreat if you meet the elements of self-defense, but even if you are in a state with a duty to retreat, you wouldn't have to in this case because you are in your own home. This is called the Castle Doctrine. It's not a defense of property per se because it only arises in regard to the duty to retreat.

Now imagine the same scenario but when you walk into the living room you see the maniac has broken both arms and a leg when he fell in a drug induced stupor through your window. He's essentially immobile and no threat and so you wouldn't be justified in shooting him, even though he has trespassed on your property.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to continue the conversation, if it still interests you. Personally, I find the subject fascinating.

 

[parkerkarate]

And I thought I was getting old when I turned 20 last month. I remember the whole GI Joe thing when I was a lot younger. Hmmmmmm.


Just kidding, I was just surprised that anyone would quote GI Joe. NOt being mean just humored.

:uhyeah:

 

[howardr]

And I thought I was getting old when I turned 20 last month. I remember the whole GI Joe thing when I was a lot younger. Hmmmmmm.


Just kidding, I was just surprised that anyone would quote GI Joe. NOt being mean just humored.

:uhyeah:

Hey! It's true - knowing IS half the battle!!! Watch out or I'll sick Destro on you!

 

[parkerkarate]

LOL, ok good night then have a good Valentines Day everyone.

 

[Cruentus]

Howardr..

Awesome GI Joe reference, btw! :boing2:

I didn't think you were being "martial-paranoid" or a "hoplophobe" (someone with an irrational fear of weapons), but I had to make sure. You know how internet is.

I will say that I agree with you bringing up this subject. Even though I advocate knives for self defense, I have heard and seen far too often schools teaching throat slits from behind and overtly offensive manuvers without any discussion of the legalities of doing such a technique, or any discussion about the difference between "self defense" and "fighting" or "assasination." These instuctors aren't doing their students any favors.

Great post on the "defending the property issue! Very informative. I would like to continue that discussion, because I am not very knowledgable on how defending property fits in with the whole scheme of things. I was familiar with the "castle" doctrine, but not the rest. So, in application, I have the right to defend my car from being vandalized, lets say, but I don't have the right to use lethal force to accomplish this. I can yell at the vandels or even push them away from my car and yell for them to stop, legally speaking. But, if one pulls a gun after I do this, then thats when lethal force may be justified. Is this kind of how it works for the most part, or am I misunderstanding a bit?

Also...are you done with law school or still going through it? I am thinking about getting my JD myself!

PAUL :asian:

 

[parkerkarate]

If you learn anatomy like I did it also helps to chose which places are instint kill spots and which are not. Of course we all learned that you twist the knife when you pull it out to either inlarge the wound or if he moves to still cut him. So anatomy can help you pick other places to not make the woud as lethal as a throat slit, or a cut to the femeral arterie (if I spelt that right). Just thought I would put that in there.

 

[MJS]

There was an interesting article in the latest Black Belt magazine about knife defenses. It pretty much said that a good majority of the defenses that are taught today, would probably get you killed if you tried to apply them in a real situation, and I have to say, that I agree with that 100%! Its one thing to do a defense when you A) know what attack is coming at you, B)the attacker offers no resistance. Doing the defense when you know and when you dont know are 2 very different things.

I would think that picking something up that you can use, such as a chair, belt, stick, etc. would be a good thing.

Using something that is gonna leave a mark, such as a marker, or a knife where something can be applied to the edges, will give you a better feel for what works and what does not.

Mike