Originally posted by lhommedieu
After reading accounts in all three NYC major newspapers, Ive concluded that the individual in question is a fairly typical Filipino martial arts student. He sounds like the kind of guy that most of us would like to have a beer with after class. Hes attended some college, has worked as a computer programmer, and likes playing paintball gun games. His parents state that he has never been in any trouble, and that hes respectful of his elders. Weve all trained with this kind of guy. While I am not 100% sure, I also think that I know the instructor in question. Hes also a decent guy. The way that he markets his school, trains his students, and practices his art is very typical of what most of us do today. As everyone is aware, its the realistic nature of a weapons-based martial art that appeals to most people seeking a method of self-defense, and Filipino martial arts instructors generally promote this aspect of their art to some extent or another out of a sense of pride and also to gain students. With respect to the question of whether martial arts teachers bear responsibility for the actions of these students, I offer the following:
We practice what the media has called a lethal, deadly, and vicious martial art. I recently attended an all-day seminar on the use of a knife on an unarmed opponent. The training was a lot of fun, and the illusion that I could ever be in such complete control of my environment when faced with an imminent danger to my person or my family was certainly gratifying to my ego. In the back of my mind, however, I kept asking the kinds of questions that I am sure are familiar to most martial artists that employ weapons in their training. One was: What would the circumstances have to be for me to attack an unarmed person with a knife? Answer: If I was certain that unless I used deadly force, my life or the lives of my loved ones were in immediate jeopardy. Obviously, this awareness could only take place in an extreme situation, wherein no other choice was possible. This has to be part of the mind-set of the art that we train, as well as the understanding that no one is exempt from making a tragic decision when placed under extreme stress. Unfortunately, many martial artists train for that inevitable day in the future where their skills will be put to the test, instead of learning how to temper their judgment every day. We cannot pretend that, as teachers, we do not bear some responsibility for imparting the moral and legal consequences for learning martial arts skills, particularly if we practice the martial arts that use weapons. At issue here is the juxtaposition between the way in which we often promote the dynamic and violent nature of Filipino martial arts, on the one hand, and having 20/20 hindsight when one of our students acts out his fantasies in a situation for which he was obviously, and completely, emotionally unprepared, on the other.
On the other hand, there are obvious limits to what we can achieve as martial arts teachers. No one can teach another person to behave responsibly in every situation, no matter how much we may desire it. Perhaps the best we can do is follow the example of the schools that teach the use of the gun in self-defense (for example, LFI), and spend some more time examining the consequences of the use of lethal force with our students.
What persuaded this guy to pull out a knife in the middle of a fight between a 250-pound bouncer and a couple of his friends? Did he think that his or someone elses life was at stake? Or did he merely allow the darker angels of his nature to end one life and irrevocably change his own forever? If the student was drinking (and here I am making an assumption) are the consequences of combining impaired judgment with this kind of knowledge so different than getting in a car while intoxicated and mowing someone down while driving home from a party? Is it different from accidentally shooting a friend on a hunting trip after ignoring common rules of gun safety? Im certainly aware that this is an imperfect analogy but I think that there is enough truth shared between both situations to merit a comparison with the actions of this individual. Youre supposed to know not to drink and drive; youre supposed to know not fool around with firearms; and youre supposed to know the limits of the use of deadly force. Im going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this individual had no idea of the consequences of his actions up until the time that he learned that the other guy had died. Now, unfortunately, he is an expert in reality-based self-defense. I think he has a lot to teach us.
Best,
Steve Lamade
