Kenpo 5.0 Commercial

[ackks10]

On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits. 2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty. He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police. The moral of the story.. they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee. Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.

Hey Jess, that's why i like you,and to use your word's my friend

"sounds like kenpo to me" it is and it was, and will always be kenpo
and i'm happy that your guy did not get hurt,but i see he did make a deposit after all,IN THE GUYS EYES, AND GROIN!!!!:uhyeah:

 

[thetruth]

Being proportionate in your defense is again subjective, you don't know the attackers intent.

True but in that scenario the attacker threw a punch, the defender who already had a knife in his hand proceeded to cut him up. I don't know anywhere where that would be considered justifiable. When I wrote my previous response I was referring directly to that clip not speaking in general.

Cheers
Sam:asian:

 

[thetruth]

True but in that scenario the attacker threw a punch, the defender who already had a knife in his hand proceeded to cut him up.

Before anyone else gets in I will note that the attacker is an idiot in this case for attacking a guy with a visible knife but that isn't the point of the debate.

 

[marlon]

On the subject one of my students was almost mugged last night coming out of a bank after hours making deposits. 2 assailants cornered him and wanted his money.. Funny thing was, he had none, he could not deposit his checks because he forgot his wallet at home and showed the attackers that his pockets were empty. He held only his cell phone in his hand and repeatedly told his attackers that all he had to do was hit send and it was on automatic to the police. The moral of the story.. they smashed the cell out of his hand, in the same motion of the phone falling to the ground he drove his fingers into the first guys eye sockets, then turned and drilled the 2nd guy in the groin with a kick and then followed up with at least 5 shots to his face because he did not go down on the first kick, he then turned back to the 1st guy and kicked him sqaure in the knee. Sounds kempo to me, and its just what he was taught---- with accuracy.

i love this!!! Don't forget the teacher who prepared him for such a confrontation. Remeber it is not just the art...training is truth

Respectfully,
Marlon

 

[Jdokan]

Before anyone else gets in I will note that the attacker is an idiot in this case for attacking a guy with a visible knife but that isn't the point of the debate.

Tough Call....my take on this is: you come to beat me up...all I want is out the door....I don't want to fight, take the chance you may leave me permenantly injured....As a result I will take my knife out and cut you...At least give you the option to walk away.....Wanna be a tough and try to punch me anyways??...I will attempt to hack off, slice, cut (choose your vernacular) to protect myself....Each time somebody elects to engage into a fight (war) one of your options is death...I don't want that to be mine...I will do whatever to keep my health....and my first option is always walk away....

This to some may come across violent..but what do we practice? These are fighting arts designed to preserve life specifically ours (or those we protect) from those that do not hold any value for our life...
This is not debating a sports team loses, etc.....somebody WANTS to punch your face in......step on you while you're down....what the hell is that????.....When you cross the line of non social behavior then the rules that are in place of typical social behavior don't apply....

 

[jmoree]

I 100% agree with practicing O V E R K I L L.

If you practice techniques 1, 2, & 3 (i.e. to an attacker's punch) over and over you can get good at it no doubt. However, not evey attacker (person's body) is the same....might get a different body response, pain response, ect. If your uke in the dojo 'goes along' with these 3 you become comfortable with that. If your REAL opponent doesn't go down after 3, and you're not used to going any further, thus hesitation, and thus a fight that goes on longer than it should, thus possibly not in your favor.

We train in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 .... Strike, kick, break, lock, choke, throw, tear, maim, smash, kick head, whatever. Hopefully, the 'bad guy' was out on 3; but if not, now you've trained to keep going w/out hesitation. If you get to 8 and the guy is still standing, then either he's really good or you've really messed up.

Also, if you train to 'nicely' take someone down, that's great for a drunk jerk now and again who starts crap with you at a bar. But someone trying to take your life, or love's life, combat in war, ect, you must learn how to further the attack. If you only train in nicely doing something, it's harder to take it to the higher levels if/when necessary. If you train in maim/death/destory, it's whole easier to tone it down rather than up in a 3-5 second situation.

The confines of the law are different per state. In GA (to summarize), if I felt like my life was in danger I can protect myself if it means taking his life. Of course, should it end up in court I have to be able to prove that I felt that level of threat. I'm not going to disarm someone with a knife and leave them standing so they can come at me again; I may not get lucky the 2nd time. I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.

If you live in GA and are interested in the laws pertaining to self-defense:
http://law.onecle.com/georgia/16/index.html
Check out Title 16, Section 16-3-21 to 16-3-26

Oh, and nice promo!

 

[SL4Drew]

***I'd rather be judged by 12 than buried by 6.

I see and hear people regurgitate this quote without any real thought as to what they are saying. There are relatively severe consequences to taking someone's life. Setting aside the moral issues, think first about what you'll face: you face arrest, a lengthy investigation and trial (taking a year or more out of your life), and incarceration for what is usually a lengthy time. Then consider what this will do to your job, your friends, and your family. The factor in the legal costs and other costs, and you're not going to Disneyland soon even if you win.

You speak of using deadly force on a disarmed attacker, if your deadly assault is successful then you are a murderer. Maybe despite the law, the jury will decide the guy "deserved killing" but if not, then after being tried by 12, you are now a felon with a lengthy sentence to serve. If he's subdued, he's subdued--you can't stomp on his head because he used to be a threat. You don't think that guys' family might think you were really the bad guy for killing a man that was no longer a threat and/or defenseless. Maybe your neighbors and the prosecutor would think so too. For the rest of your life you'll be "that guy."

I think far too often this sort of a teenage-macho-Ramboesque thinking by some confuses a true life and death situation with one where they'll have an "excuse" to actually "do" all this cool stuff they've learned. If anything, such thinking demonstrates alarming ignorance and immaturity.

I am also reminded of what that sage Dr. Dave said, "If your attacker isn't down in three moves--your basics suck and you hit like a girl."

 

[MJS]

Great thread, and I wish I had joined in sooner. But better late than never I guess. :ultracool

The techniques that are taught, should, IMO, be nothing more than a single platform to build from. I don't think that we should be bound to follow the techs. in a textbook fashion, but instead, be able to adapt to the situation we're faced with. Is Kenpo overkill? I suppose it depends on how you look at it. The extensions...aren't they deisgned to take care of the what if, or even if? Perhaps those are whats viewed as the over kill.

I do find it interesting when I see hints of, "Well, if the basics were done right...." I'm not saying that its not important to have solid basics, of course it is. However, it seems to me that that line is going on the assumption that the opponent will go down with one hit.

I think this is pretty interesting. As far as how far to go goes....like I said, for myself, I think its important to assess whats presented to you. Now, I'm no LEO, but I'd think that if someone places their hands on you, that falls into the assault category, so a hit to the face or kick to the groin is well within your rights. Taking his eyes? Well, that may be pushing it a bit. Then again, that may be the only option you have, depending on what you have available at the time. Pulling a weapon on you...well, I'm going to certainly be in fear of my life, and I'm not going to take the chance that he's simply using it for intimidation, but instead to actually use. So, if I'm going to be a 'bad guy' or looked down upon for taking his eyes, or breaking a limb, then so be it. If a reasonable person can't see that, then perhaps they should put themselves into that situation before casting judgement as to whether or not someone was justified in doing that. I wonder what they would do?

This brings me to another point of the Ken(m)po arts...it seems like the majority of what was taught is that violent, nasty stuff, that we're not supposed to use because it'll get us in trouble. Did Parker teach that down and dirty stuff, or was there something else that he only taught to a select few?

If we look at Kajukenbo, they have their groundwork. Now, I think Kaju is a fantastic art and I'm not bashing it in any way, shape or form. Look at this clip though. Is continuing the strikes on the ground a 'bad thing?' Sorry, but just because you take the person down, doesn't mean that they're done assaulting you. The techs. in that clip, began standing, the bad guy took a beating, was taken down, and beat some more. Overkill? IMO no.

 

[JTKenpo]

I see and hear people regurgitate this quote without any real thought as to what they are saying. There are relatively severe consequences to taking someone's life. Setting aside the moral issues, think first about what you'll face: you face arrest, a lengthy investigation and trial (taking a year or more out of your life), and incarceration for what is usually a lengthy time. Then consider what this will do to your job, your friends, and your family. The factor in the legal costs and other costs, and you're not going to Disneyland soon even if you win.

You speak of using deadly force on a disarmed attacker, if your deadly assault is successful then you are a murderer. Maybe despite the law, the jury will decide the guy "deserved killing" but if not, then after being tried by 12, you are now a felon with a lengthy sentence to serve. If he's subdued, he's subdued--you can't stomp on his head because he used to be a threat. You don't think that guys' family might think you were really the bad guy for killing a man that was no longer a threat and/or defenseless. Maybe your neighbors and the prosecutor would think so too. For the rest of your life you'll be "that guy."

I think far too often this sort of a teenage-macho-Ramboesque thinking by some confuses a true life and death situation with one where they'll have an "excuse" to actually "do" all this cool stuff they've learned. If anything, such thinking demonstrates alarming ignorance and immaturity.

I am also reminded of what that sage Dr. Dave said, "If your attacker isn't down in three moves--your basics suck and you hit like a girl."

Ok lets take all the machismo out. Lets say your basics are solid. Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine. Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground. He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies. Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk? The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway. So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.

 

[SL4Drew]

Ok lets take all the machismo out. Lets say your basics are solid. Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine. Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground. He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies. Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk? The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway. So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.

Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?

 

[MJS]

Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?

I'm not speaking for JT, just replying as another poster. I didn't see anything in his post regarding stomping on the head. Lets look at what he said again:

Ok lets take all the machismo out. Lets say your basics are solid. Lets say you effectively block the guys attack and retaliate with any strike you would like to imagine. Since your basics are solid you knock him to the ground. He falls and cracks his skull open on the curbing of the sidewalk and dies. Are you no less at fault then if you were trying to crack his head open on the sidewalk? The end result is the same and as you pointed out you will always be "that guy" cuase who is gonna believe your story anyway. So keep training to be nice to your attacker and if you close your eyes they might go away.

Different method of the head injury, same results. Fact is, the guy whacked the hell out of his head. We block and counter strike to the stomach, which causes the offender to fall and crack his head open. We take the bad guy down and slam his head against the sidewalk a few times. Either way, its going to be frowned upon.

 

[JTKenpo]

Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and stomping on his head which then results in his death?

Of course I can, but can a jury? And as MJS pointed out, not quite what I said.

Nicely put MJS couldn't have said it better.

 

[SL4Drew]

I'm not speaking for JT, just replying as another poster. I didn't see anything in his post regarding stomping on the head. Lets look at what he said again

You're right--I apologize. I should have asked, "Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and bashing his head on the pavement which then results in his death?"

 

[SL4Drew]

Different method of the head injury, same results

Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.

Is this an example of what I am talking about? Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use lethal force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use non-lethal force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.

 

[JTKenpo]

Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.

Is this an example of what I am talking about? Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use lethal force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use non-lethal force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.

My point is that morally no there is no difference still dead and legally unless you have credible witnesses there will be no difference either.

 

[JTKenpo]

My point is that morally no there is no difference still dead and legally unless you have credible witnesses there will be no difference either.

but I can except that I am just morally inept.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"

One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."

 

[JTKenpo]

I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"

One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."

and yet we still study kenpo

 

[Doc]

I often tell an odd ",an walks into a bar" joke at the beginning of kenpo seminars I teach. It goes, "This man walked into the bar, so I whipped our my .45 Colt Combat Commander, shoved the barrel in his mouth, breaking his teeth and tearing his lips as I pushed, then squeezed off a round, blowing out the back of his head and spattering blood and brains all over the wall behind him. What? What are you looking at? He shouldn't have walked into the bar!"

One of the first techniques we learn in yellow belt has us hacking a guy in the throat with a chop, because he placed his hand on our shoulder. Something in there about "as the attitude, so the response."

Most of this controversy is a product of, and began with the motion based Kenpo that teaches "overkill" by necessity to insure functionality. Higher levels of kenpo do not take that approach, and neither did Ed Parker in his personal Kenpo. You can also see that influence on his son, in some of the things that Ed Parker Jr. is doing now as well. But when you have a commercial self-defense course, all of them do the same thing. Poke them in the eyes, smash the testicles, rupture the throat, stomp them when they are down, take your keys and put them between yor fingers and slash the face, etc.

When have you seen a self-defense class that didn't teach that way. Why? Because most of those classes are designed for women and girls, and motion based Kenpo is partially derived from that concept. It's called quick and easy skills to teach someone for survival.

The differences however becomes significant when you extrapolate a base self-defense course into a martial art system with progressive ranks, which has become the norm today even beyond "kenpo" and its derivatives. It begins with mayhem, and adds more and more mayhem as you go higher in the art. The higher your rank, the more rips, claws, stomps, and gouges. Of course, this happens to be exactly inverse of every tradtional martial art that preceded it.

However, if a woman was attacked by some guy, if she poked him the eyes, or smashed him in the throat and he died, the law would give the advantage to the woman in our society in most gender based physical confrontations in general, and in an attack scenario in particular. Under most interpretations of the law, a woman has a greater opportunity to articulate that she was "in fear of her life," than a man. This bias is built into most aspects of the law. After all most have mothers, daughters, and wives, and anything that happened to someone who attacked one of them would not be enough.

But anyone who has found themselves in an art that teaches this "overkill" perspective should be wary. It may be cavalier to suggest "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six," but that "judged by twelve" is a lot more significant and complicated than most realize. You not only can lose everything you have, but be incarcerated on top of it. In other words, quick death or a slow one. Some would say so what's the choice?

Try something novel. Learn real martial skills that give you options beyond a poke in the eye or stomping a downed attacker no longer a threat. Your wife or mother may get away with it, but you're going to jail, and your wife or mother will be on the street when you lose the house paying for your defense, or in the civil law suit. You see, muggers have family and access to lawyers too.

 

[MJS]

You're right--I apologize. I should have asked, "Are you really telling me you can't tell the difference between causing your attacker to fall which then accidentally results in his death and bashing his head on the pavement which then results in his death?"

Entirely different levels of ethical and legal culpability.

Is this an example of what I am talking about? Have we as martial artists really lost so much perspective we can't tell the difference between an accidental death and murder? I can't be the only one that sees a difference in continuing to use lethal force against a unarmed, injured attacker, which will quite probably lead to their death, and a situation where you use non-lethal force against a guy in self-defense, he falls, hits his head, and dies.

Even in self defense, our actions are still going to be under the microscope. Hell, even a cop that shoots someone has do be on desk duty or some Admin. type position, until its decided whether or not it was justfied or not. We're probably going to be judged by a panel of people who have no martial arts experience or ones that have a limited one, possibly a distorted one, at best.

Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread...the one where I said that I feel that its important to assess the situation thats presented to you at the time. Perhaps we should be basing our response off of that. And yes, if someone is trying to cause me or someone I'm with, serious bodily harm, you wouldn't respond in a like fashion? Someone trying to hit me and knock my head off....is a parry to the punch and an elbow to their head too much? How about breaking the arm holding the knife that the guy is trying to gut me with. Is that too much? I'm sorry, I'm not going to stand around and play patty cake with someone trying to mug me. I'm minding my own business, and some dirtbag comes up and tries to take my money....screw him, he gets what he deserves, and if that means knocking a few teeth out of his mouth, maybe he'll think twice when he looks in the mirror, about doing that again.

We seem to be focusing alot on what others are doing. You do SL4...perhaps you could share with us, your response to various assaults. A grab, a punch, attacked with a weapon.

I look forward to your reply.

Mike