What are my options?

[Kong Soo Do]

Compare this, if you will, to how LEO and CCWers are instructed to use their firearms: stop the threat.

Don't "shoot to wound" or "fire warning shots" or even "shoot to kill" — just continue shooting until the threat is ended. THEN worry about the attacker's wellbeing or not.

Same deal with MSK HKD, as I understand it.

If I may offer some information in regards to L.E. and how we train with firearms since it was brought up. We train to 'fire for maximum effect to stop the threat'. In most states it is illegal to 'shoot to wound' or to fire warning shots. Here is the reason(s);

• People do not react in real life to bullet wounds the way Hollywood portrays. They do not fly back 6 feet. In real life, they only rarely fall down and if so, it is a usually a psychological reaction not a physiological reaction. In other words, they choose to fall down rather than the bullet making them fall down. To further clarify, a bullet 'can' make a person fall down due to a CNS shot or loss of BP (which takes quite a bit of time and the attacker is usually still able to continue the attack). But a bullet cannot, in and of itself, physically make someone fall down due to kinetic energy. There isn't enough 'energy' to accomplish this, even from rifle rounds. One needs to fire for COM (center of mass) where the vital organs are located to maximize the potential for a CNS shot or rapid loss of BP. One needs to be on target with as many follow up shots as are needed to stop the threat. The ammunition needs to be able to penetrate deep enough to hit the CNS or a vital organ.
• A person is responsible for each and every shot fired. A 'warning shot' means a round is going to be going somewhere other than the intended target.
• A 'shot to wound' may work on T.V. or the movies, but it usually requires an attempt to shoot the arms or legs which are smaller, moving targets. To be able to successfully accomplish this, while under duress is dramatically less than shooting the largest portion of the human body. Again, we are responsible for every round fired.
• I'm a senior member of several professional firearm forums. The following thread may be of assistance to anyone wishing further, or more in-depth information http://excoboard.com/martialwarrior/148268/1784064

The philosophy implicit within aikido doesn't say we should favor peace to the point of victimizing ourselves. It's merely that we should do the minimum amount of hurt to another in the goal of protecting ourselves. If that means not hurting our attacker at all, that's great. Otherwise, we do the best we can.

Agreed. I've posted many times before that the application of force needs to be appropriate to the situation. It needs to take into account subject/attacker factors. Is the altercation a drunk uncle at the family BBQ? Different response level than that of an attacker attempting to cause as much damage to you as possible in the shortest amount of time. Keeping in mind (statistic from L.E. training circles based upon real world data) that the 'average' altercation lasts 7 seconds with injury occurring in the first 3 seconds (in regards to physical altercations such as muggings, rape, domestics etc). An important consideration is that MINIMAL force may not be MINIMUM force.

One of the things that I add every time I use force is the statement, 'The subject took away all of my non-force options and forced me to use force to regain control of the situation'. This can similarly be applied to the use of force applied by a private citizen. You try to avoid the conflict. If you can't avoid, you try to de-esculate. If you can't de-esculate you try to evade (if the act of disengaging does not put you at increased risk. Also many states do NOT require the citizen to retreat. These are sometimes called the Castle Doctrine [in your home] or 'Stand your ground' laws). If you can't escape/evade/disengage or the situation dictates that you can't then you are forced to use (lawful) force.

As with anything, hope for the best, train for the worst.

 

[dortiz]

Zdom,

Compare this, if you will, to how LEO and CCWers are instructed to use their firearms: stop the threat.

Don't "shoot to wound" or "fire warning shots" or even "shoot to kill" — just continue shooting until the threat is ended. THEN worry about the attacker's wellbeing or not.

Same deal with MSK HKD, as I understand it.

The BIG difference is that we train for years to have choices in between. As my teachers call it the Friend, Drunk Uncle at Party and then Self Defense level. Sadly a LEO has less choices than we do. Yet we train to use whats right at the right point. I truly believe this is one of the greatest attributes to our art. Even compared to Hard Styles where most of the time a blow will have to be used yet in our chest of tricks a simple lock controls the moment and leaves less damage. Its our ability to control the levels and not do sever trauma that makes a hapkidoin a great Martial Artist and better person.​

 

[puunui]

The BIG difference is that we train for years to have choices in between. As my teachers call it the Friend, Drunk Uncle at Party and then Self Defense level. Sadly a LEO has less choices than we do.

In addition, law enforcement also have certain advantages designed to intimidate and/or greatly stack the odds beforeany sort of personal threat gets escalated. For example, when being transported, felons are handcuffed at the ankles and wrists. LEO also carry an assortment of weapons and tools on their belts. Plus, any incarcerated person will tell you that any attack on a police officer or guard will result in severe consequences, which serves as a strong deterrent.

Even compared to Hard Styles where most of the time a blow will have to be used yet in our chest of tricks a simple lock controls the moment and leaves less damage. Its our ability to control the levels and not do sever trauma that makes a hapkidoin a great Martial Artist and better person.

Exactly. A simple lock, a mild pressing of a pressure point, a simple escape, a light unexpected tap or brush somewhere go a long way to dissolving a potential self defense situation, over and above the most obvious, which is to leave the situation before it starts, or don't be there in the first place. I never worry about bar fights because I never go to bars anymore.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In addition, law enforcement also have certain advantages designed to intimidate and/or greatly stack the odds before any sort of personal threat gets escalated. For example, when being transported, felons are handcuffed at the ankles and wrists. LEO also carry an assortment of weapons and tools on their belts. Plus, any incarcerated person will tell you that any attack on a police officer or guard will result in severe consequences, which serves as a strong deterrent.
​

Very correct. At a minimum a L.E.O. will have one pair of handcuffs and a handful of flex cuffs to secure an individual. Those in Corrections that are responsible for transportation have a myriad of methods including handcuffs, shackles, waist belts, shock belts, prostraint vests and prostraint chairs and of course the 'boot'. All of this is needed in safe transportation for the Officer/Deputy as well as the prisoner and the public.

The individual officer arriving on the initial scene is often outnumbered and of course a firearm is present in every contact (his own). So having a well stocked 'batman utility belt', as well as being proficient helps tremendously. This may be showing my age a bit, but when I first started we had a .38 revolver with 6 rounds of ammunition and that was it. No O.C. spray, no ECW (Taser), no MTM ventilator mask, no 911 tool and we didn't even carry handcuffs or a radio for my first two years! Nowadays with all that stuff and a Glock 21 .45ACP and two magazines my belt weighs around 30lbs or more.

The average private citizen probably isn't going to carry these types of things. Even off-duty Officers/Deputies don't carry nearly what they do on-duty. Off-duty I carry a Swiss Army knife (it comes in handy with the different screwdrivers and such), an Endura Spyderco knife with full serrations (this makes an excellent rescue tool for cutting things like seat belts at the scene of an auto accident etc), a kubaton on my key chain (so I don't lose my keys ) and off course my off-duty firearm, a Glock 23 .40 S&W. For any private citizen I would suggest at the very least a pocket knife as it has so many uses. O.C. spray on a key chain 'can' be useful. And of course, whatever is legal in your area.

Exactly. A simple lock, a mild pressing of a pressure point, a simple escape, a light unexpected tap or brush somewhere go a long way to dissolving a potential self defense situation...

Knowing these types of techniques can be of infinite value. As mentioned above, hard core striking/kicking is great...if it's needed. Not every situation needs the bad guy being trashed. Yes, if it is necessary and no other choice is reasonably available. Glenn mentions the 'light, unexpected tap or brush' in the above quote. Professional security and bouncers regularly use exactly this, particularly when moving someone from point A to point B. The light brush or tap, to the right area can in some situations be vastly preferable to hard hits to the same area. And they are usually quite effective in not only gaining the undivided attention of the individual in question, but their compliance as well.

...over and above the most obvious, which is to leave the situation before it starts, or don't be there in the first place. I never worry about bar fights because I never go to bars anymore.

Bingo! Words of wisdom that should be among the very first learned by a new student. As the saying goes, 'the best way not to get hit is to not be there in the first place'.

 

[zDom]

For example, your wife or daughter flips out and starts attacking you. Are you going to "add trauma on top of the trauma to ensure the threat is ended"? After you throw your wife or daughter, which follow up would you use -- a stomp kick, punch, neck break, drop into a choke or armbar?

All of them in sequence, twice, because we are mindless brutes. Our training overrides all common sense and reason. /end sarcasm


I mean ... Really? What kind of question is this to ask?


I thought this was a polite, friendly discussion not a contest to see who can pick through comments to twist them into something they are quite obviously not. What brought on this attitude, this sort of response? Have I offended? Am I missing something? Give me some time on break to go through and re-read this thread. I will examine my comments to find how I have erred.


I mean, it even feels as if you are taking a shot at me mentioning Won Kwang Wha was a bodyguard: I didn't say he was the ONLY master to be employed in such a way; the information was only offered it as an explanation as to why our curriculum might have its combat-ready focus. It as if you are trying to rebut every comment made.

So what gives?

 

[zDom]

OK, as near as I can tell:

I must have offended because I disagreed with your opinion that “both aikido and hapkido have a generally non-violent disposition.”


You then responsed by transforming my observation that “We train followups which add trauma on top of the trauma to ensure the threat is ended”


into

a “guiding principle” (putting words in my mouth) and then grilled me on who established that “guiding philosophy” (another shift).


It is at this point I apparently made my mistake: I thought you were genuinely unclear on what I was attempting to communicate and seeking clarification. But it appears that might not have been your motive because you then went quote-by-quote to rebut everything I said (even going so far as to imply MSK is a flawed system because Kimm didn't think it was good enough for him — that was your point, right?)

Apparently you perceived my disagreeing with your opinion “both aikido and hapkido have a generally non-violent disposition” as a challenge to debate and that your strategy in this debate is to descredit me and my opinion by poking holes in each and every comment I make and/or trying to make it appear that I am a violent individual who has mistaken the true philosophy of hapkido and/or the MSK system as being a misguided bastard branch of hapkido.

Go ahead: release another salvo. I won't be baited into any more responses so do your best or worst with the above. Have fun. Good luck in your training.

 

[puunui]

I mean ... Really? What kind of question is this to ask?

So it is ok for you to take one of my comments from a post a long time ago and take that to an extreme and turn it into something that it is not, but when I go the other way of showing the extreme of your comment, you get offended?

I thought this was a polite, friendly discussion not a contest to see who can pick through comments to twist them into something they are quite obviously not. What brought on this attitude, this sort of response? Have I offended? Am I missing something? Give me some time on break to go through and re-read this thread. I will examine my comments to find how I have erred.

See answer above.

I mean, it even feels as if you are taking a shot at me mentioning Won Kwang Wha was a bodyguard: I didn't say he was the ONLY master to be employed in such a way; the information was only offered it as an explanation as to why our curriculum might have its combat-ready focus. It as if you are trying to rebut every comment made. So what gives?

Again, taking offense when none was intended. The point I was making was that others have served in a bodyguard capacity, and they are not into adding "trauma on top of the trauma to ensure the threat is ended", that people can and do evolve away from such priorities and concerns, especially when they are no longer functioning in such a bodyguard capacity. We do not know what GM Won would be doing today if he was still alive, because he passed away at such a relatively young age. I would comment though, that at the time GM Won served as a bodyguard for GM SUH Bok Sup's father (1954-58), Korea had just come out of a devastating civil war which left the country in ruins, which is quite different than the conditions you or your students face today, living in the United States. So perhaps the philosophies and policies that governed his thinking back then, may not be suitable or appropriate in today's gentrified lawsuit environment.

Unless of course, your student base and focus is teaching primarily secret service agents, and others functioning or employed in a bodyguard capacity.

As I understand it, GM Won was a relatively large, naturally powerful man, and so his hapkido was a reflection of that -- strong forceful hand techniques and powerful kicks. I think that because GM Won was a relatively large, naturally powerful man, that would also be a factor in both his hapkido style as well as why he was chosen to be a bodyguard for his teacher's father in the first place.

 

[puunui]

I thought you were genuinely unclear on what I was attempting to communicate and seeking clarification.

I was unclear on what you were attempting to communicate, which is why I gave you and example which hopefully would clear things up. If that isn't what you would do to your wife or daughter that was attacking you, then perhaps, your organization's philosophy isn't all that different from other branches of hapkido or even aikido, as you previously thought.

But it appears that might not have been your motive because you then went quote-by-quote to rebut everything I said (even going so far as to imply MSK is a flawed system because Kimm didn't think it was good enough for him — that was your point, right?)

My point was to explain Dr. Kimm's relationship with the Moo Sool Kwan. Here is an entry about it on Dr. Kimm's Hanmudo page:

http://hanmudo.com/founder?start=7

"Dr. Kimm discussed this new venture of Kuk Sool-Hapkido with Park Lee hyun, Chairman of the American Hapkido Association (AHA). Park Lee-hyun and Grandmaster Suh had personality differences and never associated with one another. Master Park insisted that the AHA remain under the control of the World Mu Sool Kwan Association. From Master Park's viewpoint, Dr. Kimm betrayed the AHA and gone to the world Kuk Sool Association. Dr. Kimm told Master Park that the AHA needed more techniques if they wanted to become a bigger association in the future. In this light, Dr. Kimm asked that Master Park take over the Association as President. He agreed and maintained this office until his death in 1987."

 

[MJS]

ADMIN WARNING

Attention ALL Users: We already have 3 reported posts in this thread. The purpose of the RTM feature is to report posts that are in violation of the forum rules, NOT because you disagree with a member and their posts. Hot pursuit of members, ie: following them from thread to thread, is against the rules as well. Use the ignore feature, which is found on everyones profile.

Further disregard of the forum rules, will result in possible suspension of your account.

MJS
MT Asst. Admin