To Shin Do Video Clip on Youtube!

[ginshun]

I have no idea. I don't know anything about Toshindo and Bujinkan, I'm sure my terminology is wrong. I don't know him well, he is the son of a close friend but I don't see her often. All I know is he has been training at a Quest center for years and travelled to Japan a couple years ago with his instructor and some other students. Apparently he didn't know he would be receiving his bb. The story I have is he was asked to demonstrate and was then presented with his bb by Hatsumi. I do not have details, this is all second hand from his mother, and I don't really care. It just struck me as odd when he was getting his butt kicked all over the place when he was already a quite a few years into training.

I think the line between Toshindo and Bujinkan was blurred for a few years. I have heard that you could be ranked in the Bujinkan and ToShinDo while training at Quest Centers. Whether this is true anymore with the recent (apparent?) split between SKH and the Bujinkan I have no idea.

I have also heard several stories of people being ranked to shodan while in Japan training with Hatsumi. I have no idea if its a common thing, but it does happen, or so I have heard. Don and some others here probably have first hand knowledge of it happening or not, so I will defer to them on that one.

I guess what I am saying is that your story sounds believable to me, but saru is probably correct in that if he did get his shodan in Japan from Hatsumi, then it was a shodan in Bujinkan, not ToShinDo, as Hatsumi has nothing at all to do with TSD. It is entirely possible I suppose that whoever his TSD teacher was honored the rank given by Hatsumi and he recieved his TSD shodan at the same time.

Regardless of the specifics, its an interesting story. Makes you wonder how many people there are running around out there that are ranked in both the Bujinkan and Toshindo while oly training at one school. Or how many there are that are certified to teach both arts.

 

[Jade Tigress]

I think the line between Toshindo and Bujinkan was blurred for a few years. I have heard that you could be ranked in the Bujinkan and ToShinDo while training at Quest Centers. Whether this is true anymore with the recent (apparent?) split between SKH and the Bujinkan I have no idea.

I have also heard several stories of people being ranked to shodan while in Japan training with Hatsumi. I have no idea if its a common thing, but it does happen, or so I have heard. Don and some others here probably have first hand knowledge of it happening or not, so I will defer to them on that one.

I guess what I am saying is that your story sounds believable to me, but saru is probably correct in that if he did get his shodan in Japan from Hatsumi, then it was a shodan in Bujinkan, not ToShinDo, as Hatsumi has nothing at all to do with TSD. It is entirely possible I suppose that whoever his TSD teacher was honored the rank given by Hatsumi and he recieved his TSD shodan at the same time.

Regardless of the specifics, its an interesting story. Makes you wonder how many people there are running around out there that are ranked in both the Bujinkan and Toshindo while oly training at one school. Or how many there are that are certified to teach both arts.

Yeah, he never specified a style. It's my error. I just assumed it was Toshindo because it was under Hayes. I'm sure you're right and it was Bujinkan. Like I said, I am clueless about it, please forgive the faux pas.

 

[Cryozombie]

Interesting clip and thoughts. I know nothing about To Shin Do but how does what they were doing differ from a follow-up? Isn't it normal to teach follow-up techniques?

I don't know specifically about Toshindo, and I won't speak for the majority of bujinkan schools, but in OURS... without going into specific details, we are taught as a follow up that once you get the guy down, if its safe to do so... MOVE... flee... get to saftey as our follow up, or, failing that, to Immobilize the guy in a way that you can still be safe until you can get help... it doesnt usually entail pounding the guy on the ground.

 

[Jade Tigress]

I don't know specifically about Toshindo, and I won't speak for the majority of bujinkan schools, but in OURS... without going into specific details, we are taught as a follow up that once you get the guy down, if its safe to do so... MOVE... flee... get to saftey as our follow up, or, failing that, to Immobilize the guy in a way that you can still be safe until you can get help... it doesnt usually entail pounding the guy on the ground.

Makes sense. Thanks Cryo.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I think you guys are reading a bit too much into this short clip. Jus because you have thrown somebody to the ground doesnt mean the fights over so I have no problem with training follow-up techniques. All we are seeing here is technique, we know nothing about what they teach in regards to legal issues. As far as attorneys, even minus the follow-up techniques Im fairly certian that a lawyer would still find something to hammer you on. If you base your training entirely on what some lawyer is going to say after the fact you better hang it all up now. Survival is job #1, as long as you can explain you actions and why they seemed reasonable you shoul be ok. You can always get sued.

 

[jks9199]

Heh, OK. I'd have to rewatch it. Those fuzzy little web vids don't always come across clear. But this stirs up the whole legal thing about self defense. Anyone know if there is a lot of precedence in these types of things? I think it varies state to state here in the US.

First disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor am I providing legal advice. I'm just a working cop with some idea of how things like this might play out. Nothing I say here should be construed as legally binding or legal guidance or advice. The best and only legal advice I give is to consult an attorney with experience in the area and your courts.

Second disclaimer: I don't train in Toshindo, Budo Taijutsu or anything else more related than being an Eastern martial art.

Now that those are out of the way...

Self defense is basically a claim you make to explain why you committed a crime or tort (civil wrong/basis of a civil suit). You're saying "I did it -- but I had a good reason and shouldn't be punished for it." So, you're limited to what is reasonable in the light of the circumstances. Looking at one extreme end, my sister-in-law who is under 5 feet tall, and doesn't break 100 lbs soaking wet would be justified in using more force -- even up to lethal force -- against someone than I would or, to reach the other extreme, whatever huge super heavy weight mixed martial arts fighter you care to name. A lot comes down to how you explain what you did; "He was charging at me, and he had a machete, so I shot him" makes a much stronger case than "I saw the guy a block away and he had a machete, so I shot him." Or, to use the examples in the video, "the guy had a knife, and even after I knocked him to the ground, he wouldn't let go of it and was still trying to get loose" would be more likely to justify more or continued use of force than "the guy had a knife, and I knocked him to the ground, and was standing on the knife hand when I struck him repeatedly to the body."

Target selection can help, too. Police are trained not to strike highly vulnerable targets, like heads and fingers, with their batons unless they can justify using force that's likely to cause serious bodily harm. (As we all know -- the real world and training aren't always in agreement!) Some of that is liability driven (fingers), some of it so that we don't kill someone unnecessarily. If you're trying to hit less vulnerable areas, and can articulate that -- even if you miss and strike a more vulnerable target (aiming for shoulder/bicep and hit head, say), at least you can suggest that you didn't intend to do such serious harm.

But... the bottom line is that there is no substitute for avoiding the situation in the first place whenever you can. And, if you are forced to defend yourself, there's no substitute for having the best lawyer you can get advising you. Just ask Mr. Orenthal J. Simpson the value of a good legal team!

 

[lalom]

If you liked what Paul wrote, you should listen to what he said about what the other attorny would try to do to you.



I take it from your quote that you will do whatever you want unless someone with a law degree tells you it is bad.

Well, I have a lawyer on retainer. I have talked and been lectured by a prosecuting attorney by the name of Alain Buresse as well as studying the works of Masaad Ayoob and talking with a former prececuter. What have you done to determine that you are safe legally?

As Paul said, the lawyer facing you will use anything to try to make you look bad and maybe put you away or take a lot of cash from you. That includes looking on the internet for anything that might indicate you were trained to hit people on the ground. They only have to convice a jury that you were out of bounds. And stuff like this looks bad. Yes, there may be times when you need to hit someone on the ground- but putting in on the internet so you can face it later in court is another matter. There are other things that could have been put up in its place.

Ask anyone who has faced the legal system after defending themselves. It can cost you thousands of dollars even if you stay out of jail. Whoever put this clip on the internet made a bit harder for students to cover themselves legally in the future. If you do not want to believe me, then do the research yourself since it will be your own freedom at stake if it comes down to it.

But whatever you do, don't think that just because you did not do anything wrong that you will be ok. Talk to a lawyer before you get into trouble.

Start by readingthis page.

Any attorney worth his/her salt will try to use anything they can to win their case. However your assumptions and declarations as to what is being taught there or not is mere speculation on your part. Of course, not being a TSD practitioner you wouldn't know what is taught the curriculum regarding legalities.

This clip was a randori demonstration using hanbo. This was not a recorded teaching session.

 

[Cryozombie]

I think you guys are reading a bit too much into this short clip. Jus because you have thrown somebody to the ground doesnt mean the fights over so I have no problem with training follow-up techniques.

Well, FWIW, I didnt watch the clip, and dont care how its taught in Toshindo, I was just making a reply to Pam on how our school does it.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Fair enough. I dont have any investiment in either style so its all "everybody has one" opinion from me.

 

[Don Roley]

If you base your training entirely on what some lawyer is going to say after the fact you better hang it all up now.

It is not that. My complaint is with what is being shown on the internet.

Whoever put together this clip and posted it made life more difficult for anyone using the art later on. There may be a lot more to what is being taught. They may have a great discussion on the legal problems you will face and how to avoid them. But this tape is what a jury will see and what a lawyer will try to use against you. There is so much more that could ahve been put out there.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

True, but I think that bell has been rung. There is pretty much anything out there on the net on any martial art these days, but I agree that we all need to be careful of how we portray out arts in this digital age.

 

[Cruentus]

It is not that. My complaint is with what is being shown on the internet.

Whoever put together this clip and posted it made life more difficult for anyone using the art later on. There may be a lot more to what is being taught. They may have a great discussion on the legal problems you will face and how to avoid them. But this tape is what a jury will see and what a lawyer will try to use against you. There is so much more that could ahve been put out there.

Well, Don, you are correct. I think that most people would agree that if you end up in court for self-defense, opposing council will hang you out to dry. This video may be something that is used for that, depending on what their overall strategy is.

But, that isn't the real question here, I don't think. The question is, where do we draw the line? There is a point where you have to shield yourself from liability, and particularly as an instructor, act responsibly. But there is also a point to where you have to live your life freely, and not by the fear of what some opposing attorney might do in a bunch of "what if" scenarios. There can be a delicate balance between being responsible, shielding liability, and living or running your business freely.

In the Alexander Pring-Wilson Case, Mr. Wilson used a knife in a fight which resulted in the death of one of the other attackers; he claimed self-defense, the opposing party claimed that they were the victims. The opposing council constantly refered to the knife that was used as a "military knife." And do you want to know the irony? The knife he used was a Spyderco folding knife called the civilian.

Let me explain the significance here...

Do you know how many articles I have read by "legal experts" that advised not to carry a knife that had a "violent" name or look because you would surly be buried with it in court? Lots. Yet, did it matter in the Alexander Pring-Wilson case? Not at all, because opposing council took a fairly unmenecing tool (as far as knives go) and called it a "military knife" and tried to paint a violent picture of it anyway. It's not just the facts that matter in these cases, it is the arguments of the facts. There was no one single thing that tipped the balance of this case in one direction or the other; it was the culmination of the evidence and arguments that mattered.

When you read something that someone wrote to help sell magazines regarding "legal issues," or even when you speak to an expert about use of force and the law, you have to realize that you are speaking hypothetically.

So, yes, it is true. Hypothetically, the name or look of your weapon will matter, as will your internet avatar or posts, as will any video footage, as will any training you have done, as will conversations you have had with friends, as will any of this stuff that "legal experts" like to discuss. It all matters, because it all will be used against you in court.

For us to not have any liability at all, we basically have to discontinue our training, become Buddhist monks, live in solitude, and hope that our lives are never in jeapardy. And even in this state if our lives are in jeapardy, then we'd better keel over and die quickly, because if we use force we still will not be completely free from liability.

And of course, none of us are going to do that. So, we need to balance out living freely with living responsibly, and doing what we can to sheild liability. This would entail the most important aspect of behaving reasonably in the first place, and avoiding violent situations. The totality of the circumstance, our reasonableness, our history, and our provable previous educational experiences regarding use of force and the law will matter much more then the other details. And as instructors, what matters is our legal council and insurance, and that we can prove through the waivers that people sign, the overall philosophy regarding violence, and the documented talking points regarding reasonable use of force and the law; in other words, what will matter is that we have done our due diligence. This will make much more of a difference then any of our "techniques" that are caught on tape.

And, if this footage is such a huge problem and is so incriminating, then guess what... the entire martial arts community has a problem. Because I have seen comparable to far more incriminating evidence caught on tape from every facet of the martial arts; from Bujinkan to TKD to MMA to FMA - you name it. And the fact is, most "martial arts" don't even bother to have a use of force discussion, let alone documented talking points.

So, to criticize this footage as being irresponsible is, in my view, a criticism of the entire martial arts population in general (including those from your own [fill in blank] style). There may be some validity to that criticism, but then we should probably be talking about the lack of understanding of legalities in the martial arts in general and not isolating our conversations to just this video clip (once again, I have seen much worse). And with that, we will have an interesting discussion that will solve nothing. This is because we will still have to make personal choices as to where we draw the line between sheilding liability and living freely.

And as to this footage; I am not going to give an opinion on its application, and I am not a ToSHinDo or Ninjutsu guy of any ilk. I will say for sure, though: to assert that video footage like this is going to tip the scales of justice is unreasonable. It will be the other details that surround the circumstance that will matter most.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Well, Don, you are correct. I think that most people would agree that if you end up in court for self-defense, opposing council will hang you out to dry. This video may be something that is used for that, depending on what their overall strategy is.

But, that isn't the real question here, I don't think. The question is, where do we draw the line? There is a point where you have to shield yourself from liability, and particularly as an instructor, act responsibly. But there is also a point to where you have to live your life freely, and not by the fear of what some opposing attorney might do in a bunch of "what if" scenarios. There can be a delicate balance between being responsible, shielding liability, and living or running your business freely.

In the Alexander Pring-Wilson Case, Mr. Wilson used a knife in a fight which resulted in the death of one of the other attackers; he claimed self-defense, the opposing party claimed that they were the victims. The opposing council constantly refered to the knife that was used as a "military knife." And do you want to know the irony? The knife he used was a Spyderco folding knife called the civilian.

Let me explain the significance here...

Do you know how many articles I have read by "legal experts" that advised not to carry a knife that had a "violent" name or look because you would surly be buried with it in court? Lots. Yet, did it matter in the Alexander Pring-Wilson case? Not at all, because opposing council took a fairly unmenecing tool (as far as knives go) and called it a "military knife" and tried to paint a violent picture of it anyway. It's not just the facts that matter in these cases, it is the arguments of the facts. There was no one single thing that tipped the balance of this case in one direction or the other; it was the culmination of the evidence and arguments that mattered.

When you read something that someone wrote to help sell magazines regarding "legal issues," or even when you speak to an expert about use of force and the law, you have to realize that you are speaking hypothetically.

So, yes, it is true. Hypothetically, the name or look of your weapon will matter, as will your internet avatar or posts, as will any video footage, as will any training you have done, as will conversations you have had with friends, as will any of this stuff that "legal experts" like to discuss. It all matters, because it all will be used against you in court.

For us to not have any liability at all, we basically have to discontinue our training, become Buddhist monks, live in solitude, and hope that our lives are never in jeapardy. And even in this state if our lives are in jeapardy, then we'd better keel over and die quickly, because if we use force we still will not be completely free from liability.

And of course, none of us are going to do that. So, we need to balance out living freely with living responsibly, and doing what we can to sheild liability. This would entail the most important aspect of behaving reasonably in the first place, and avoiding violent situations. The totality of the circumstance, our reasonableness, our history, and our provable previous educational experiences regarding use of force and the law will matter much more then the other details. And as instructors, what matters is our legal council and insurance, and that we can prove through the waivers that people sign, the overall philosophy regarding violence, and the documented talking points regarding reasonable use of force and the law; in other words, what will matter is that we have done our due diligence. This will make much more of a difference then any of our "techniques" that are caught on tape.

And, if this footage is such a huge problem and is so incriminating, then guess what... the entire martial arts community has a problem. Because I have seen comparable to far more incriminating evidence caught on tape from every facet of the martial arts; from Bujinkan to TKD to MMA to FMA - you name it. And the fact is, most "martial arts" don't even bother to have a use of force discussion, let alone documented talking points.

So, to criticize this footage as being irresponsible is, in my view, a criticism of the entire martial arts population in general (including those from your own [fill in blank] style). There may be some validity to that criticism, but then we should probably be talking about the lack of understanding of legalities in the martial arts in general and not isolating our conversations to just this video clip (once again, I have seen much worse). And with that, we will have an interesting discussion that will solve nothing. This is because we will still have to make personal choices as to where we draw the line between sheilding liability and living freely.

And as to this footage; I am not going to give an opinion on its application, and I am not a ToSHinDo or Ninjutsu guy of any ilk. I will say for sure, though: to assert that video footage like this is going to tip the scales of justice is unreasonable. It will be the other details that surround the circumstance that will matter most.

Great post, Paul

It definitely IS a balancing act, isn't it. I shudder to think that some unscrupulous DA will discover that I purchased an Ashida Kim book when I was a freshman in high school!

 

[Don Roley]

In the Alexander Pring-Wilson Case, Mr. Wilson used a knife in a fight which resulted in the death of one of the other attackers; he claimed self-defense, the opposing party claimed that they were the victims. The opposing council constantly refered to the knife that was used as a "military knife." And do you want to know the irony? The knife he used was a Spyderco folding knife called the civilian.

Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.

After several requests from undercover law enforcement personnel, Spyderco produced the Civilian model. Developed for a prestigious branch of US law enforcement, the patented reverse "S" blade shape evolved to fulfill the back-up needs of undercover agents with little or no training in self defense. With its paper thin tip, the Civilian is specifically designed for law enforcement personnel and not designed for general utility or everyday use.

I happen to have a friend that works closely with law enforcement. To be exact, he is an orderly in one of those places where they send people that the court deems criminally insane. He deals with people on a daily basis that are not only legally unstable, but have commited foul crimes against others. He is in real danger of one of these obsessed scum bags looking him up some time in the future. Until they changed the laws about concealed carry weapons, he carried a Spyderco Civilian. He stated quiet clearly that despite the fact that he was an upstanding member of his community and worked where he did, if he ever had to use the thing on one of his ex- convicts, the best legal advice he got was that particular knife would add about 100k to his legal bills IIRC if he managed to stay out of jail. He was willing to pay that cost for the advantages the Civilian gave him in terms of a fighting knife. That is, a knife made with the purpose of fighting in mind.

So, how much time in a cell with Bubba are you willing to endure, and how much of your net worth are you willing to flush down the toilet because one of your students posted a clip of you beating on a student when he is down? That is something you can avoid quite easily.

Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? If you do not, I strongly suggest you do. When things hit the fan, it is too late to worry about things like that. My advice goes to everyone. It will cost you money, but you shell out cash for self defense training every month. Cash to keep you safe from being raped in prison is rather cheap when veiwed in that light.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? If you do not, I strongly suggest you do. When things hit the fan, it is too late to worry about things like that. My advice goes to everyone. It will cost you money, but you shell out cash for self defense training every month. Cash to keep you safe from being raped in prison is rather cheap when veiwed in that light.

The lawyer on retainer is great advice. I served on the board of a volunteer, public benefit corporation and having one saved us from bankruptcy.

You do make a good point about the knife. As a painter, I generally carry a utility knife. Unfortunately, it also looks a bit like a fighting knife, althought I do NOT carry it for self-defence. You've given me much to think about.

I'm at a crossroads here. Both you and Paul are more experienced in the arts than I am and have given me good advice in the past. I think I'll split the difference and acknowledge both your points...

 

[Don Roley]

You do make a good point about the knife. As a painter, I generally carry a utility knife. Unfortunately, it also looks a bit like a fighting knife, althought I do NOT carry it for self-defence. You've given me much to think about.

Well, if you have a lot of people that can come forward to say that you pulled the thing out to cut wire and such, you have gone a long way towards saving yourself from seeing the inside of jail. But legal fees can be expensive even so. Any knife can look like it was made for killing because 99.9999% of the knives made can be used to kill someone else. But if it has a tanto point, blackened blade and anything else along that line, you increase the problems.

It is not worth worrying about getting raped in prison to warrent doing anything that would cause you problems if they can be avoided. Carrying a knife just to use for fighting or putting tapes of your art doing things that are illeagle is just too simple a thing to avoid IMO. If anyone has done something like that, defended themselves and yet still reccomends doing it, I would be eager to hear their opinions. As it stands, no one I know who has had to actually talk to the police after a violent incident seems to disagree with taking the legally safe route.

I'm at a crossroads here. Both you and Paul are more experienced in the arts than I am and have given me good advice in the past. I think I'll split the difference and acknowledge both your points...

If you have problems with a particular opinion between two people, the best thing to do is to get the opinion of someone more knowlegable than either party. Go get a lawyer that has served as a prosecutor. Put him on a retainer and ask him various questions about things like your knife, what you post and such. I have the advantage of being very, very close to an lawyer that used to serve as a prosecutor, and listened to the advice I got and then went out and got one on my own.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This is actually becoming a GREAT thread! While I have to say that Don and Tulisan are probably two of my most favorite (read I agree with you guys on "almost" everything) posters here, I think Im more in line with what Tulisan is saying here. Neither point is "right or worng" IMO its just a philosophical difference. You guys both post great stuff.

I believe that no matter what you do or train a lawyer is going to trot out something to use against you, ultimately what matters is if you were justified. If some crackhead breaks into your home with a machette and cuts you and you shoot him down with a legally owned "military assault rifle" with all types of spec ops dodads on it and "Killer" etched on the reciever, you are not going to prison even if they show youtube clips of you dressed up like rambo and training for Armageddon. Be more worried about knowing when force (and what type) can be used than the tool or technique you use. Like I said over in the NYPD shooting thread. If a shooting is good who cares if it takes 5000 rounds to survive? But if you are wrong one shot is too much. Same here, if you are right ultimately its not really going to matter what brand of knife you used or what internet videos there are of you out there. A tanto point or black blade isnt going to turn a good use of force into a bad one. If you are in a questionable situation it may tilt the scale but its always going to be what you did that gets you in trouble more than what you used. If you are in the wrong it wont matter if you used a butterknive or you pencil. You can ALWAYS get sued civically so yeah while all this may hurt you in the pocketbook, worry more about surviving. If you are really concerned about defense use what is most effective and money be damned, it wont matter if you are dead.

So, yes, it is true. Hypothetically, the name or look of your weapon will matter, as will your internet avatar or posts, as will any video footage, as will any training you have done, as will conversations you have had with friends, as will any of this stuff that "legal experts" like to discuss. It all matters, because it all will be used against you in court.

For us to not have any liability at all, we basically have to discontinue our training, become Buddhist monks, live in solitude, and hope that our lives are never in jeapardy. And even in this state if our lives are in jeapardy, then we'd better keel over and die quickly, because if we use force we still will not be completely free from liability.

And of course, none of us are going to do that. So, we need to balance out living freely with living responsibly, and doing what we can to sheild liability. This would entail the most important aspect of behaving reasonably in the first place, and avoiding violent situations. The totality of the circumstance, our reasonableness, our history, and our provable previous educational experiences regarding use of force and the law will matter much more then the other details. And as instructors, what matters is our legal council and insurance, and that we can prove through the waivers that people sign, the overall philosophy regarding violence, and the documented talking points regarding reasonable use of force and the law; in other words, what will matter is that we have done our due diligence. This will make much more of a difference then any of our "techniques" that are caught on tape.

And, if this footage is such a huge problem and is so incriminating, then guess what... the entire martial arts community has a problem. Because I have seen comparable to far more incriminating evidence caught on tape from every facet of the martial arts; from Bujinkan to TKD to MMA to FMA - you name it. And the fact is, most "martial arts" don't even bother to have a use of force discussion, let alone documented talking points.

This core idea is what I agree with. But I do not discount what Don is saying here. Most of us go about our lives/training not thinking about what he is saying, that is dangerous too. To totally ignore what we carry, post on the internet, or train is asking for disaster. So to balance things out here I think we need to be aware of what each is saying and make educated decisions for ourselves vs. going along blindly.

Fortunately the statistical odds for any of us having to worry about this is slim and can be slimmer if we worry more about prevention than fighting.

 

[Cruentus]

Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.

lol...whoops. I actually checked my notes, and I am wrong. The knife used was not the Civilian, but the Endura with a black handle. Description here: http://spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=208 Sorry about that, because by me giving the wrong information, I totally clouded my point. Grr...

So the POINT is, it didn't matter what the knife was called or marketed for in this case as far as the prosecuting attorney was concerned. It was a "military knife" every time opposing council refered to it, even though there is nothing to indicate that the Endura is used for "military" purposes.

This supports my point that we both agree with; and that point is opposing council will try to use everything that they can to paint a negative picture of who they are going after.

Tulisan, I have shelled out cash to put a lawyer on retainer and listen to his advice as well as two others who have served as prosecuters in addition to what I can read. Do you have a lawyer on retainer?

O.K., this is the second time this was asked and sorry for not answering it before. Of course I have attorneys on retainer; I have no less then 2 specifically on retainer, but I have access to more for specific matters (insurance, financial, etc.). It is not that I am Mr. important-pants or something; it is just that I am very fortunate to have access to one of the largest law firms in my state due to what my wife does for a living.

I also am very fortunate to have access to opinions of both attorneys and members of the law enforcement community who's opinions are regarded highly in these matters (some on a national level), because they have been used as expert witnessess many times before.

And as far as "articles" go regarding legal matters, the best (collectively) I have seen in commercial publications (not counting academic journals mind you) is the "ask the attorney" section of the GLSDA newsletter: http://www.glsda.org/ That is a great group that I highly recommend that people join, specifically if you live in the Great Lakes Area. The reason I like this publication, as far as commercial publications go, is because the legal experts are not tied to the publication in such a way where they can't be frank about their opinions. Most articles published in commercial publications are designed to gain readership, and therefore can often be overblown or exaggerated, stepping over the bounds of practicality.

Now, let me say for the record this: Not all of us in the Combatives/SD/MA world are retarded. I know that his might be surprising to some. I like Mr. MacYoungs website and writing, don't get me wrong, and I think he does a great service. But he sometimes writes in a manner that makes it sound like everyone else besides him and his network in the combatives community are a bunch of ignorant Jerks who are destined to get all of their clients sent to prison. I know why he does it, and I respect it. However, don't get all caught up in that ****. We gotta be a bit more objective than that and realize that were not all stupid.

Regarding legal matters in General:

Don, we both agree here on most of this issue; so Jonathan, it isn't like our views are that opposing. Again, we both agree that opposing council will hang you out to dry with everything they can, and therefore we need to do what we can, within reason, to protect ourselves.

But my point is that our best defense is that we behave like REASONABLE and PRODUCTIVE citizens. It is not reasonable to hide our interests in the martial arts or combatives, paranoid of the law at every corner, anymore then it would be to dress like Dog the bounty hunter with an arsenol of weapons everyday. Both extremes will backfire in court anyway.

We all need to decide how we want to balance out our lives with living freely and living responsibly and sheilding liability.

I have attorneys, insurance, and proper waivers for my business. I have talking points covering legal matters. I train and teach with legalities in mind. For my personal defense, I carry a firearm of which I am licensed. Anything else I would use for self-defense are things that are available too me as opportunity; because I HAVE to use them and because they are there for other purposes other then defense. This could be a briefcase, an ink pen, or a utility knife. And most importantly, I don't behave in a manner that is consistant with that of a criminal, or that would put me in a mutual combatant situation.

But I am not going to hide what I do or my interests.

These are all things that I do personally to balance liability with living freely. Everyone has their own personal choices to make in this matter.

As to this video footage:

Let's not forget what the original topic of discussion is here.

The real topic of discussion is this video footage, and how "incriminating" it would be if used in court. This is where I am going to disagree with some people here.

You see, I agree with the notion that footage like this could be used in court; but I am also saying that almost all training sessions and video footage in the martial arts could be used in the same manner. It is not like Hayes is in pajama's and sneaking up behind someone and using a sentary removal technique here...ahem.

So, for those of you who think that this material is so incriminating, I suggest that you tape some of your own training sessions and look at that as well. Because the fact is, combatives/SD/MA involves using force; which can be translated too HURTING someone else. So IT ALL looks bad if caught on tape and used in court, and this isn't isolated to hitting a knife weilding attacker while on the ground. An argument can be made against almost ANY type of training where force is involved.

Because this is true, actual techniques caught on tape (besides that of the wearing of pajamas and the sneaking up behind people sort) are rarely going to matter as much as the argument behind them, the overall training philosophy and presentation of the training entitiy, the waivers and legality talking points, and all the other factors surrounding the circumstance. The thing that will matter the most, of course, is if it was clearly a clean use of force or not. No video footage will change that fact either way.

Again, it is the TOTALITY of the cirumstance that matters. So if this video footage is irresponsible, then I think that we ALL need to look in the mirror...

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

This is actually becoming a GREAT thread! While I have to say that Don and Tulisan are probably two of my most favorite (read I agree with you guys on "almost" everything) posters here, I think Im more in line with what Tulisan is saying here.

Sorry; I was formulating my monster post before I was able to read yours. I wanted to say that admiration goes both ways here, Blotan Hunka you have said some really good sense stuff that I agree with as well.

Also, once again you make some really great points here, specifically in that a clean shooting or good use of force is much more important then the other details. At the end of the day, that is what is going to matter the most.

 

[jks9199]

Good lord! Have you ever seen that knife or who developed it and for what purpose? Well, anyone who has not, please read The following.



I happen to have a friend that works closely with law enforcement. To be exact, he is an orderly in one of those places where they send people that the court deems criminally insane. He deals with people on a daily basis that are not only legally unstable, but have commited foul crimes against others. He is in real danger of one of these obsessed scum bags looking him up some time in the future. Until they changed the laws about concealed carry weapons, he carried a Spyderco Civilian. He stated quiet clearly that despite the fact that he was an upstanding member of his community and worked where he did, if he ever had to use the thing on one of his ex- convicts, the best legal advice he got was that particular knife would add about 100k to his legal bills IIRC if he managed to stay out of jail. He was willing to pay that cost for the advantages the Civilian gave him in terms of a fighting knife. That is, a knife made with the purpose of fighting in mind.

Under my state's laws, the definition of a concealed knife as a weapon versus a tool often turns on minutiae of the design or it's practical use either at work or in daily life for anything other than fighting. That knife... I'd be charging someone with carrying a concealed weapon if I found it on them. There's almost no way I can see that it's useful for day-to-day work, or even special purposes like skinning knives or carpet knives. I don't care what a manufacturer calls it... They can call it "Warm & Fuzzy Teddy Bear" if they want. That knife is a weapon, and I think the mythical "reasonable man" would agree fully.

Which brings me a little more on the original topic; the video clip, if presented as proof of "self defense training" would be widely open to attack because so many of the techniques shown included attacks after the opponent was likely to have been disabled and no longer presenting a threat, in any reasonable interpretation. If it's presented or explained as "practicing historical combat techniques" -- it become a different matter. A lot of self defense comes down to articulation.