I think we're talking past each other. I'm not digging up the numbers, but most people aren't a victim of violence past grade school fights. When you get to the set of victims -- yeah, they're victims of violence. Though there's still a fair set of people who are equal participants in bar fights or similar events that have more to do with a Monkey Dance than a predatory attack.Not sure how the stats can say this, due to the fact that 'real violence' happens all the time. Perhaps I'm not understanding what the stats are saying real violence is.
Fortunately my current teachers are all capable of doing this.
What You Can/Can't Do.
- Thread starter MJS
- Start date
The stats say you probably will not win the lottery. However, someone wins every week. Make sense now?
It's pretty easy to get the statistics. The FBI maintains them. The most recent "Crime in the United States" report is for 2008. For the entire US:
Year:
2008
US Population:
304,059,724
Number of reported violent crimes:
1,382,012
Violent crime rate:
454.5 per 100,000 residents
That, by the way, is down from a violent crime rate of 666.9 in 1998.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html
You can break this kind of data down by regions - the information is all there. The federal government issues some cautions on relying on the raw data to draw conclusions, but overall, the basic information is what it is; if you're a US resident, in 2008, you stood roughly a one-half of one percent chance of being a victim of a violent crime.
That would tend to the support the idea that although over a million violent crimes occurred in the USA, a random person stood a statistical .45 percent chance of being a victim of such crime.
Yes, real violence happens all the time. And the chances of it happening to one of us are no doubt very much higher based on circumstances not present in the raw data. Where we live, how we live, whom we associate with, where we go; all of these could tend to increase or decrease our individual chances of facing a violent attack. Some of these circumstances we might be able to control - like choosing not to hang around in bars; and some we might not be able to control - like living in an expensive subdivision instead of an inner city. But on average, we face a fairly low chance of being involved in a violent crime.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #43
I dont believe I said that a situation would definately be one or the other. I think its pretty obvious that each situation will vary. Certainly, IMO, a mugging and some drunk knucklehead giving you crap are different. As for the other part, I'll address that with Bills post, as its along the same lines.
Thanks for the stats Bill.
I certainly agree and this is something that I myself has said many times, that depending on where you live, where you hang out, etc, can all play a part. For myself though, I dont want to assume, just because its on paper, that certain things wont happen. IMO, thats like some of these MMA guys that talk about high percentage moves. They look at 5 fighters, see them doing a certain move with success, and assume that they themselves will have equal success. I disagree with that, because what works for those 5, may not work for another 5.In all honesty, I think that no matter what the PC thing to do is, it wont always happen. In the 'heat of the moment' for lack of better words, people will not be thinking, and they'll just have to deal with whatever happens.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
I think I am in accordance with MJS on the basis that; Becuase I train for worst case scenario ultimate force will be used when its is right to do so and if or when that time comes...legality will be the farthest from my thought process.
To me, no judical system set up by man supercedes that which was preset by GOD... if the natural order of things puts me in the path of a monster its my job to onliterate his existence. Ultimately my penance is with my maker and no mortal has a right to convict me....not when preservation of life is the reason.
If it is truly about protection and preservation I WILL do whatever is warranted but it will be my moral compass guiding me.
To me, no judical system set up by man supercedes that which was preset by GOD... if the natural order of things puts me in the path of a monster its my job to onliterate his existence. Ultimately my penance is with my maker and no mortal has a right to convict me....not when preservation of life is the reason.
If it is truly about protection and preservation I WILL do whatever is warranted but it will be my moral compass guiding me.
The problem with every arguement presented here is that it seems we are trying to avoid being charged. I won't go into details but I had a situation where my lil brother was messed up on pills, weed & alcohol and came to my house. I was trying to get him to pass out on the couch & calm down but one thing led to another and I kicked him out. He broke back in knife in hand & lunged at me; my response was to hit him in the head with a hammer. Now I have a malicious wounding charge, because the LEO felt I was using "excessive force." Now the grand jury has failed to indict me and this June will be over a year since the incident occurred.
Fine, I was arrested and out on bond within an hour & at my initial appearance the AO didn't even know what kind of knife was used much less the CSI drama investigation. However, he is involved in various political orgs & churchs; which are anti-2A...
Fine, I was arrested and out on bond within an hour & at my initial appearance the AO didn't even know what kind of knife was used much less the CSI drama investigation. However, he is involved in various political orgs & churchs; which are anti-2A...
buldog
Orange Belt
I had my own run in with the justice system many years ago. I was at a State Park with 4 friends who were on leave from the Navy. Needless to say we had quite a few beers with us at the barbeque that helped fuel the incident. There was another group close by of about 20 people, one of whom really did not like one of my buddies. They got to running their mouths and eventually got into it. Lasted all of a few seconds when my friend took him down and pounded him out with about 4 punches. While that was going on, another of their group swept the knee of my buddy was on a cane due to tendonitis. Bad mistake (he was a black belt in TKD and HKD). He procedes to start choking him out and from the look on his face he was not going to stop either. I get down and talk him out of killing the guy and get them seperated and the guy picks up a 3 ft log and starts swinging it at me. Which is when the park ranger shows up. He marches us all back to the parking lot and calls the cops. My group just waits calmly for them to arrive but the 2 guys from the other group flee in their car (the cops caught them at the hospital later one with a badly swollen throat and the other with a broken jaw, eye socket and nose that wouldn't stop bleeding). After all the statements are taken 2 people are arrested. My buddy with the bloody knuckles and ME. They did not arrest my MA buddy because he was defending himself, which was cool. However, a number of the other witnesses claimed I held down the first guy while bloody knuckles beat the crap out of him and the ranger saw the other guy coming at me with the log so he figured I was definitely involved in the fight. The 2 of us are at the station giving our statements when the Sgt. walks in and starts yelling at the cop for having 2 convicts unrestrained at the same time. He grabs me, cuffs me, jabs me it the ribs a few times with his baton and then slams my face into the wall and throws me in a cell. Bloody knuckles gets to leave about 15 minutes later, so I figure I'll be out soon. That's when they bring in the 2 guys from the hospital and they get processed out in an hour or so. I spoke up and asked when I was going to be released and was told "shut up convict". It was not until 14 hours later that they let me go. They asked me if I wanted to make a statement and I said hell no just let me out of here. Well as it turned out the dozen or so times I had gone over the incident never counted as my statement. When it got to court I was viewed as the guy who fought with police and would not cooperate! To make it worse, all my buddies were back on duty in the Med and could not testify. It was me against a dozen of the other group. I got lucky in that the judge was able to see through all the bull and had a soft spot for the military. It ended up as Nolo Contendre. A good result but I still had to spend a night in jail and pay for an lawyer who did absolutely nothing to earn their pay (I got the impression that she thought I was lying to her).
Luckily, I have avoided any other serious confrontations since. Pardon my rant but that has been bugging me for over 20 yrs.
Luckily, I have avoided any other serious confrontations since. Pardon my rant but that has been bugging me for over 20 yrs.
Folks, let's not turn this into a "this is how the cops abused me" thread. Those never, ever end well...
The question asked in the OP, as I understand it is this: How do you handle the overkill inherent in the practice of many techniques or kata so that you don't go to jail?
I'm never going to advocate being a punching bag or simply taking abuse. OK, there are a few circumstances, like dealing with a toddler, where you may deliberately choose to accept or receive the attacks without countering... but you can still avoid and evade. And that's the key, to me -- your responses don't have to be rote application of a drill or kata or technique. When it's appropriate, you may strike to the bicep instead of the head, or turn a punch into a push. A throw may end in a controlled drop rather than a slam. Or you may stop before the "completion" of the technique.
But doing this isn't easy, and takes particularized training. You have to go beyond the simple repetition, and move into actual practicing the techniques in realistic manners. You have to use some scenario-like training, including practicing that judgment call about when to stop a response.
The question asked in the OP, as I understand it is this: How do you handle the overkill inherent in the practice of many techniques or kata so that you don't go to jail?
I'm never going to advocate being a punching bag or simply taking abuse. OK, there are a few circumstances, like dealing with a toddler, where you may deliberately choose to accept or receive the attacks without countering... but you can still avoid and evade. And that's the key, to me -- your responses don't have to be rote application of a drill or kata or technique. When it's appropriate, you may strike to the bicep instead of the head, or turn a punch into a push. A throw may end in a controlled drop rather than a slam. Or you may stop before the "completion" of the technique.
But doing this isn't easy, and takes particularized training. You have to go beyond the simple repetition, and move into actual practicing the techniques in realistic manners. You have to use some scenario-like training, including practicing that judgment call about when to stop a response.
I see this (in bold) as an exercise in futility. First off avoiding and evading all come before the situation turns violent; you can avoid the high risk areas & behaviors so you don't need to defend yourself and you can evade a possible threat before it gets to that "oops" point. Trying to evade & avoid in the fight is allowing your assailant to attack and attacking means controlling the situation. When you give up control you've already lost...
However, it is never "appropriate" to hold back when your life or safety is threatened. Simply put you don't know what that person will do so if they are threatening you with violence assume the worst. More so, who decides whats "appropriate..?" Who has the right to tell you that you have to "be gentle" when the other guy is criminally assaulting you..? Again trying to "play by the rules" while someone else isn't is allowing them to control the situation & its basicly setting you up for failure...
Going to jail is like being punched in face; you always assume it worse then what it is when you've never had it happen to you & when it happens it ain't as bad as you thought it would be. Course, it stills sucks regardless but charged doesn't mean convicted. When looking at the legal of this we have to realize two things; 1) the people making laws often don't have a clue about self-defense or violence & 2) all laws are based on ceratin political ideologies which support the "welfare state concept" & exist to make doing anything but allowing the .gov crowd to come save you a crime.
Once you start looking at those two facts it makes the legal arguement of whats "appropriate" seem pointless; since in some states you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. That cuts your options down real quickly; go to jail or go to the morgue. The only options you have is fight or die.
More so, lets not believe the hype ourselves here; we're martial artists not action movie super heros. We aren't smarter, stronger, faster & more skilled then the "bad guys" because we train in an MA. Fact is in jail all you have is time & most people just hit the wieghts or do various body weight exercises to get stronger & faster. There are all kinds of liberary books & college courses you can take so they get smarter & their is more experienced criminials to learn from. Some of which are also martial artists & there are "prison martial arts." There is a huge difference between a gutter punk trying to get a fix or some wonna be trying to "prove themselves" & an experienced criminal "educated" by the system. Problem is you don't know if the person attacking you is a pro or punk & you only have a few seconds to find out.
The only "appropriate" reaction is to nuetralize the attacker by whatever means is necessary & neutralize means "stop them." If you injure an attacker and can break contact do it & if you bust their head on the curb like an over rip melon its "appropriate" as long as you break contact at the first chance you get. The same rule in groundfighting applies in SD; never give an opponent your back. If you break contact without stopping the threat you risk being blindsided & getting yourself seriously hurt...
http://www.register-herald.com/poli...r-man-indicted-for-assaulting-federal-officer
http://www.register-herald.com/policecourts/x519093650/Man-gets-one-year-in-jail
How's that philosophy been working for you so far, Ron?
There's a story of one of the great teachers in my system. He was a holy man or monk in India, and one day, he was set upon by four men who were unhappy that he refused their request for money. Using evasive stepping and impressive emotional restraint, he managed to subdue or drive off two of the men at the scene, and used locks and restrained the other two. He took the two he had restrained to his home, and they became his disciples. He, due to his religious beliefs, chose not to use lethal force, or even do serious harm to his attackers.
There is a time for restraint and control. Even wild animals recognize this; a dominance battle rarely ends in the death of the loser. It's unwise at a minimum to react without control or thought; what you have basically said here is that you have less ability to reason or control than an animal, and won't bother to do so under pressure. You're simply going to assume that every possible attack you face justifies using lethal force -- and that's not true.
Interestingly enough, I've never said, nor have I seen anyone here say, that you shouldn't use enough force to handle the threat. But you're suggesting beginning at the top of the force paradigm; I'm suggesting using appropriate force, whatever that might be. There is a difference.
Most LE trainers I know or know of have moved away from the stair-step approach in assessing use of force. You can find one of the more common ones (or the source of many imitators) at The (Original) Use of Force Model. You may note that it focuses on whether or not the force used is likely to result in insufficient, or excessive levels of control. While it's not 100 percent applicable to non-LE situations (a LEO is seeking generally to control an assailant; self defense is about dealing with the initial attack, and using enough force to prevent further attack while making good your escape), the principle is solid.
Here's the thing... In the end, you won't make the decision about whether or not you get arrested, nor are you likely to make the decision about whether or not you get convicted. (Let's ignore plea bargaining for the sake of discussion...) You can learn to make the decision about the force you use, which then gives you the most control you can have over the other issues. By understanding some of the basic ideas, and speaking carefully when you choose to speak during the investigation, you may well create a situation where it is quite unlikely for you to be arrested...
And you'll be a friggin' human being, not some sort of death-dealing automaton or animal.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
This is what I mentioned in my OP. This thread was started by myself, because of comments that I saw between you and another member, in that other thread, which I also linked in my OP.
This thread was simply designed to show that it seems like no matter what you do to defend yourself, you run the risk of getting in trouble. It may have wandered off slightly, but thats the main jist of it.
Well I think you're missing something here;
a) I'm not going to get into the debate of "religious ideology" because well if someone feels that by their faith they have to be restained (I don't, but) thats a whole different matter from "appropriate" use of force & more toward philosophy.
b) I plainly stated a context "criminal assault" thats not a dominance issue but someone trying to commit a criminal act against another person through violence; muggings, rape, aggrevated battery etc. Thats different then social violence and well even social violence can turn into criminal assaults, there are plenty of cases of people who just wanted "beat up" someone and accidently killing them.
The problem is we don't have a clear definition of "appropriate force," legal or otherwise. This isn't like some poltician talking about "hope & change" or "fixing the system" and not giving you a clear cut step to that process. Appropiate force is term used but its a term thats is decided when you have you're day in court.
OK, The Use of Force Paradigm for Enforcement and Corrections, you linked to has two main problems when dealing a self-defense situation. First off, it a LEO regulation & LE regs don't effect civilians. Secondly, the reason why LE regs (policies) don't effect civilians is because LEOs have to confront criminals but are restrained in how much force they can use by the Constitution. As a civilian I an limited only by the law and, not the policies.
More so, I hope you did notice that I did mention "breaking contact" twice in the sentence you quoted in this reply. The reason for this is I'm not talking about trying to "win the fight" I'm talking talking about doing enough damage to end the threat, you cannot (except in Jackie Chan & Jet Li Movies) do enough damage to stop an attacker without exceeding the level of violence they use to "gain the dominant" position to gain the chance to "break contact" with an attacker.
More so, all you have to deal with is known facts; if all you know is there is an unknown person, who displays aggressive behavior & is threating you with violence. Trying to play catch up to some arbitary regulations is life threatening.
Hind sight is 20/20 & I've yet to see a LEO who when faced with unknown assailants who didn't go to a "ready posture" for using lethal force prior to establishing the boundries for use of force regulations. I advocate nothing more then going to a "mental readiness posture" to use lethal force. If you don't need it you can drop down a level or two.
Ok you're the one asserting that a "friggin' human being" has to us "appropriate force" however there is no clear docturine for "appropriate force" for civilians except in common law (case law) & specific criminal codes.
As such (& I'll refer to federal law since its applicatable in all states) there are numerous common law instances where the right to defend yourself isn't wieghed by some local political Ideology.
1. Beard v. United States: There is No Duty to Retreat Before Using Deadly Force
2. Allen v. United States: Self-Defense Decisions Can be Made in a Hurry; There is a Duty to Retreat on Public Property
3. Rowe v. United States: Withdrawal from a Fight Revives the Right to Self- Defense
4. Allison v. United States: Self-Defense is for Juries to Evaluate, Not for Judges to Exclude. Also establishs that self-defense claims must be decided by courts alone...
More so, I'm not saying to be "some sort of death-dealing automaton or animal" thats your assessment based on trying to push a use of force policy reserved for those whose duty is restrained by the Constution as public servants. Civilians need only be concerned with two things; what the laws in the books and say & what the higher courts have decided.
As such as civilians we have NO DUTY to retreat before using lethal force (a broken arm can be considered lethal force), have NO DUTY to retreat in public, "breaking contact"/withdrawl revives the right self-defense (why some states claim a duty to retreat) & any matters of self-defense must be established in the Court of Law. Thats means "anything you say to the investigating LEO can be used against you in the court of law" & no one but a trial court over that case can determine self-defense.
The legal definition of lethal force is "Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm."
I'm not saying you have to kill, cripple or main an attacker; thats a judgement call at the time of the event, but simple technique ranging from a hit throw, to double-leg takedown, RNC or punch to the face can be considered "lethal force" if it can be "expected to cause death." We as experienced martial artists all know you can't "shove the nose bone into the brain" with a palm strike but, a Prosicutor can still make that claim to a grand jury to get indictment. More so, any action can taken to be "expected to cause death" because we are martial artists.
This is what I mentioned in my OP. This thread was started by myself, because of comments that I saw between you and another member, in that other thread, which I also linked in my OP.
This thread was simply designed to show that it seems like no matter what you do to defend yourself, you run the risk of getting in trouble. It may have wandered off slightly, but thats the main jist of it.
Thats true, however I'm also using this thread for what its designed for. Take all of the above statements from myself. Remember its illegal for me to give legal advise, not illegal for me to give opinions based on my limited knowledge of the law & personnal experience
BLACK LION
Black Belt
Wow, my brother tried to stab me when I was a teen and I used my martial prowess of that time to defend myself but he kept coming...he was my brother so I held back even thought I probably shouldnt have. I didnt take him seriously even though he tells me now he was posessed and truly wanted to kill me. My dad beat a reckoning into him that night that changed him forever... If cps was then what it is now, they would have rasied hell.
Small problem with that, my lil brother has MA training as well & is more than competant with a knife. I should know I taught most of his grappling techniques and he's ranked in Karate, Judo & Kick Boxing plus training in some Combatives system.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
Looks like the good ole hammer trumped that sheet though!
BLACK LION
Black Belt
This comment is directed in general and in no way focused on any single person.
I see people talking to one another like they are the least educated martial artist around here more often than I care to.
I also see alot of stuffing of words into others mouths and assumptions.
Stop it, please.
This is "Martial talk"... Most of us here know what martial means and the fact that this place is martial talk and not mixed martial talk or martial arts talk, one would think that we could have more fruitfull discussions on that which pertains to war and not a bunch of schooling on bs.
This isnt lecture time or lets read 4 pages of conjecture time.... geez.
I am not perfect and I cannot say that I do not break laws...hell most of us break laws we dont even know we are laws. Itry my best to remain a law abiding citizen however there is a natural law or morality that precedes any of that and when mans laws conflict with the law of my maker then I have a problem. Anyhow, when it comes to preservation of life or limb, If I believe I or another undeserving person or animal is in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or possibly death I am going to use my moral compass and not the 2010 california penal code.
I think this is what J2KU was saying... he is a law abiding citizen but when a scumbag steps up to the plate all bets are off becuase they arent going off a more or legal compass one bit... At least I am using one of the two.
When in fear for my life or that of another I will act accordingly, the what will remain a mystery until that day comes... I will train in a way that gives me options from stitches to a permanent relocation 6 feet below the earths crust, plus all thats in between.
Those that choose to walk the path of using force in a righteous and just manner better full well understand the force continuum...not only legally but morally as well....How an individual makes his or her choices along that path is something that is completely up to them. No one can tell anyone how to exercise thier free will, above all, their will to live.
SenseiBear
Blue Belt
But you are thinking about it before hand... And making a plan to go "just short of killing" someone who threatens to break your finger.
JWLuiza
Black Belt
It was direct feedback on how his posts read. I don't make assumptions on what people know or don't know. It was germain to the discussion and highlighting why there were issues...and why there were four pages of discussion. It was not an attack against the person nor was it inappropriate given the tone of the discussion.
It may have been what he meant, but it really didn't come across as that. His posts sounded rigid and devoid of any flexibility. It may or may not be his beliefs, but they were not articulated well.
JWLuiza
Black Belt
LOL... and quoting someone and then saying your response is not directed against anyone in particular...well just really doesn't work.
BLACK LION
Black Belt
It does if you read. Especially since I went through the pages before posting and the CONTEXT of my post reflects that. You made yourself the example by choosing to take what I said personally. Just cuz I quoted your post to bounce my comment off of doesnt mean I meant YOU and only YOU... I meant any and all that apply...If you wish to make it sound like you are the only one that applies based on my post, thats your choice.
Looks like we are done here.
Take care everyone.
