Are we to blame

[terryl965]

As Instructor are we to be blamed for teaching things that someonre uses against what they was tought, I mean if a student start a fight and kills someone could they go to court and blame there instructor for teaching them these techniques?
Just curious

 

[tellner]

This sort of echoes your other thread on "teaching everything you know". The issues are similar. On one hand the world is very small now. There aren't many secrets, and what they could learn from you they could learn from someone else. On the other hand, you need to take reasonable precautions to make sure that people aren't maniacs or criminals before you take them too far. Back in the bad old days it might be your shameful duty to hunt down and put down a student who had turned bad. These days you might go to court.

An old teacher of mine was in a similar situation. His nephew was a seriously screwed up kid. He learned a little MA from our teacher, but not too much. One day he and a couple friend thrill-killed a hunter. At the trial his lawyer tried to pin the blame on the martial arts teacher who supposedly implanted a lethal hair trigger in the young sociopath. The prosecution tore that one up, but our teacher got a good scare and some extra gray hairs from the experience.

That's yet another reason I don't like large commercial schools. On one hand the bad actors aren't likely to learn as much. On the other you don't know them as well you would in a smaller more personal setting. It's easier for the weirdos and bad guys to slip through the cracks in the big busy storefront school.

Moral responsibility is trickier. You certainly have some. How much depends on your behavior. Did you take all reasonable precautions? Did you ignore troubling signs? If so, why? Did you have reservations about taking the student in the first place? Did anything you said or did encourage him to do bad things?

 

[Kacey]

As Instructor are we to be blamed for teaching things that someonre uses against what they was tought, I mean if a student start a fight and kills someone could they go to court and blame there instructor for teaching them these techniques?
Just curious

If you teach someone to shoot a gun, are you responsible for who/whatever they shoot? I don't think so... but that's why we, as instructors, need to teach when/where/how it is okay to use the skills we are teaching, in addition to the skills themselves. Among other reasons, MA training generally continues over a much longer time, allowing and encouraging MA students to continue to refine their skills if they want to learn new skills. As students learn and refine skills to a more dangerous level, the instructor needs to impress upon them even more when/where/why such skills can be used. This, much more than the military origin of many arts, is the reason for the discipline of many classes - the use of patronymics and honorifics and other courtesies, uniforms, structure, etc. - to teach students the discipline they need to NOT use their skills inappropriately. This is also why, IMHO, instructors should be able to refuse to teach students who, over time, show that they are not - and will not - use such skills appropriately.

An example: students who are late to my class must do 20 pushups unless I excuse them. No excuses, no explanations, no trying to get out of it (injuries preventing performance of pushups will modify this to situps or something similar) - not because I care if they do pushups, but because if they aren't disciplined enough to class on time, and can't accept the consequences of being late - even if it's not their fault (and I often excuse them) - then I am not going to teach that student something potentially dangerous until they demonstrate that they have the discipline to handle it.

 

[Tames D]

I don't think the instructor can or should be held responsible. Otherwise I could run down some pedestrians with my car and blame my high school drivers ed teacher.

 

[Blindside]

No, it doesn't take a super duper special technique from the martial arts to kills someone. Martial arts don't kill people, people kill people.

Now why does that sound familiar?

Lamont

 

[Carol]

I don't think the instructor can or should be held responsible. Otherwise I could run down some pedestrians with my car and blame my high school drivers ed teacher.

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

[Tames D]

I was just thinking the same thing.

I've always heard that great minds think alike...LOL

 

[tellner]

Or "Fools seldom differ." One or t'other :angel:

There is a difference, though. Driving is the skill of getting from one place to another. Accidents happen, vehicular homicide is real. But fundamentally it's not a skill that's terribly useful for assault or most violent crime. If you taught someone poorly and he killed someone as a result it would be a cause for shame.

Martial arts aren't quite the same. No matter what sort of philosophy you dress them in or how much sportsmanship you encourage in competition they are combatives no matter how attenuated. They are skills which are or are descended from skills designed to allow you to defeat another with physical force. The car is a tool which can be dangerous when misused. Better instruction makes a driver inherently less dangerous. Martial arts are a tool which is dangerous when used correctly. Instruction increases the degree of danger.

The Driver's Ed teacher says "My teaching makes people less dangerous."
The Martial Artists says "My teaching makes people more dangerous unless they develop or already have strong ethics."

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I agree that a teacher shouldn't be held responsible for a student's misconduct.

On the other hand, we are responsible to teach proper behavior and to be selective with who we teach.

Also, there are cases where a martial arts teacher has been sued by the victim of a student. I don't know if there are any where they've been sued successfully, but that's just a matter of time...

 

[grydth]

Folks, anybody can sue or be sued by anybody else...... the operative inquiry is whether they can win.

With the precedents of lawsuits against bars and gun manufacturers, its a good bet you may be sued. Carry insurance and have a good attorney.

But don't forget - you often only hear about the spectacular (and ridiculous) legal outcomes. Most of the suits against gun makers have been tossed out.

Are you at risk of losing? Well, what are you running for a dojo? If you are indiscriminately teaching sociopaths killing techniques, and fostering aggression instead of self defense - maybe you do need a whuppin' in that other American dojo, the court room.

 

[morph4me]

Absolutely not. You give people tools, how they use them is not your responsiblity.

If a person get's drunk and kills someone with his car, is that the fault of the brewery or distillery? The car manufacturer? The civil engineer that designed the street?

If someone takes a baseball bat and beats someone else with it, is that his baseball coaches responsibility because he taught him to swing the bat properly?

On the other hand, if you teach martial arts to someone you know to be violent and screwed up, you have the same responsibility as a bartender who keeps feeding drinks to someone who's obviously drunk.

 

[MJS]

As Instructor are we to be blamed for teaching things that someonre uses against what they was tought, I mean if a student start a fight and kills someone could they go to court and blame there instructor for teaching them these techniques?
Just curious

I like the drivers ed analogy! Then again, how many people sue cigarette companies because they have cancer even though a warning is posted right on the pack? How many people sue a store because they slipped and fell, even though the store has a 'Caution! Wet Floor.' sign?

In todays world, I wouldn't put it past someone to try and hold their inst. responsible. Instructors should always stress to students to use what they've learned as a last resort. Chances are, when they're in court, they're going to be asked if they exhausted every possible option before resorting to physical violence.

I think it would be interesting to hear if there are any such cases out there and if so, what the results were. Like I said, anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not they have a strong enough case is a different story.

Mike

 

[terryl965]

I like the drivers ed analogy! Then again, how many people sue cigarette companies because they have cancer even though a warning is posted right on the pack? How many people sue a store because they slipped and fell, even though the store has a 'Caution! Wet Floor.' sign?

In todays world, I wouldn't put it past someone to try and hold their inst. responsible. Instructors should always stress to students to use what they've learned as a last resort. Chances are, when they're in court, they're going to be asked if they exhausted every possible option before resorting to physical violence.

I think it would be interesting to hear if there are any such cases out there and if so, what the results were. Like I said, anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not they have a strong enough case is a different story.

Mike

Actually Mike there was one in 1997 in California and the courts ruled that the instructor did not use enough cautiob and made sure the student was ready for advance traing and the parents of the boy the that got beat up collected 85.000 from the instructor for his part in teaching his student how to hurt someone. I'll see if I can get that info. again and post it

 

[The Kidd]

If you are teaching techniques you cannot be held liable, but when you start to teach your students how to use those techniques then we are getting into gray territory. Ex. say you are the instructor from the Karate Kid movies who owns the "Kobra Kai" studio and you are teaching your kids to beat people up, be aggressive and violent. Then yes you could be held liable for laying a foundation for violence. If you are teaching as a matter of self defense and last resort then the likelihood is slimer.

 

[chinto01]

This is an interesting question which I have even debated with my friend who owns a dojo. in todays world everyone seems to have a lawyer. I would say that if one of your students does some serious damage to someone then you may be a target in the lawsuit in some way or another. Let me give you this example. We know someone who happend to be at a bar and was a little intoxicated. This person began running their mouth and eventually ended up getting tossed a pretty good beating in the bathroom. To make a long story short this person got a lawyer who brought lawsuits up against the attacker and friends, the bar and owner, and the bouncers. We asked why so many seperate lawsuits and the reply was to make sure someone paid for what happend. So if one of these sharks (lawyers) does his homework and finds out who the teacher was they may get implicated on the lawsuit or have a seperate suit brought against them just to have a better chance of recovering damages.

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob

 

[rmclain]

This is a great topic.

The really scary part is that the law, which was originally conceived on justice, is not really about justice anymore - its about what can be proved (in a court of law). Today, it seems that everyone wants something for nothing and many lawyers are swarming to manipulte the law to get a coin or fame. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

As to the original question:

I think that an instructor that advocates violence in his instruction should be held accountable. I'm sure everyone has heard of a school, whose instructors or students will go out and intentionally provoke fights at bars and clubs to test their physical skills. One of my old students told me he was enrolled at a school in the 1970's that required this of students. *Lots of nuts back then.

But, if an instructor educates their students on the ethical-side of martial art training along with the physcial training, then I don't think the instructor is at fault.

Sometimes things happen and people have to use their skills to protect themselves. One of my students ran into a gunman at an Arlington, Tx. convenience store in 2001 and had to deal with it. I really expected the gunman to try and sue my student(from jail) for injuring him during the incident. But, it never happened. The story is listed in this web page: http://www.defendu.com/newsletterjune2004.htm

R. McLain

 

[Brother John]

As Instructor are we to be blamed for teaching things that someonre uses against what they was tought, I mean if a student start a fight and kills someone could they go to court and blame there instructor for teaching them these techniques?
Just curious

Yes and no.
On the surface level, we aren't responsible for what people do with what they have obtained.

What we ARE responsible for is WHOM we give these tools too.

A well trained martial artist's skills should be a well honed reaction, something that's triggered from them in a near automatic response.
So it's our responsibility to only accept students who have a moral base, a grounds from which to help them develop strong character.

if we hand a gun to someone, we are an accomplice to whatever they do with it.
PRetty much the same thing here.

Your Brother
John

 

[Xue Sheng]

Legally I imagine it can differ from state to state.

Morally is a whole different issue.

If a teacher teaches a student and the student goes off and uses what he was taught in a manor other than how his instructor trained him to use it (example the instructor made it clear that fighting was the last resort and fights can be very serious things) then although if I were the instructor in this case I would feel extremely guilty and wonder if I should not change my way of teaching or stop all together. From the sidelines I can say that the teacher is not really responsible since he or she did try to instill in the student the seriousness of fighting.

However if the teacher was glorifying martial arts for the sake of violent efficiency and attack then yes the teacher is responsible. Or if the teacher had a student that he was tying to instill proper principles in and saw that the student was a bully or quick to anger and attack and continued to teach said student then here to I feel there is a responsibility attached. But I doubt teachers that would do this type of thing would have asked this question at all.

My Sanda teacher will teach no one unless he gets to know them first and feels that they will not use what he trains unless there is absolutely no choice. But still people are people and he could still decide to teach someone that will eventually go off and use it for the wrong reasons and in this case I do not feel he is responsible for the actions of the student.

 

[chinto01]

Yes and no.
On the surface level, we aren't responsible for what people do with what they have obtained.

What we ARE responsible for is WHOM we give these tools too.

A well trained martial artist's skills should be a well honed reaction, something that's triggered from them in a near automatic response.
So it's our responsibility to only accept students who have a moral base, a grounds from which to help them develop strong character.

if we hand a gun to someone, we are an accomplice to whatever they do with it.
PRetty much the same thing here.

Your Brother
John

John I agree with your statement 100%. I am curious however about this statement:

"So it's our responsibility to only accept students who have a moral base, a grounds from which to help them develop strong character."

I feel the same way but do you not feel this will limit the number of students you teach? Also how do you know if a potential student has a good moral base? Was also curious if you are teaching kids?

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob

 

[grydth]

This is an interesting question which I have even debated with my friend who owns a dojo. in todays world everyone seems to have a lawyer. I would say that if one of your students does some serious damage to someone then you may be a target in the lawsuit in some way or another. Let me give you this example. We know someone who happend to be at a bar and was a little intoxicated. This person began running their mouth and eventually ended up getting tossed a pretty good beating in the bathroom. To make a long story short this person got a lawyer who brought lawsuits up against the attacker and friends, the bar and owner, and the bouncers. We asked why so many seperate lawsuits and the reply was to make sure someone paid for what happend. So if one of these sharks (lawyers) does his homework and finds out who the teacher was they may get implicated on the lawsuit or have a seperate suit brought against them just to have a better chance of recovering damages.

In the spirit of bushido!

Rob

There are both legal and practical reasons for the suit against the bar. The legal reason is that bars can be expected to control what goes on in their bathrooms, to include violent assaults. The practical reason is that the bar is much more likely to have assets and insurance to pay off a big jury verdict.

Any competent "shark" does their homework to the point where 95% of the work is done before the trial starts. I've seen situations where a party is dead before the formal trial even starts, they just don't know it.

If a lawyer is a "shark" .... what form of sea life would you label an individual who engages in a needless bar fight and beats up a drunk in a bathroom? Just curious...... me, I'd say bottom feeder. Certainly not the type "martial artist" I'd associate with... I hope the lawyers eat well.