Opinions sought

[Kong Soo Do]

Very recently I was in an online discussion with another martial artist. He relayed the following story;

I was withdrawing $500 from the ATM to pay my rent when some homeless looking guy grabbed my elbow in a threatening manner so I did a joint lock on him (our #1), and slapped him across the throat with the back of my hand, which caused him to stumble back and fall to the ground. I was going to follow with a roundhouse to his head to knock him out (a sport thing) but his girlfriend put herself between us so I stopped.

I went to class that same day and told GM Ji about the incident. He wasn't upset about the altercation and was happy that his technique worked but got very upset when I told him that I think I might have broke that guy's wrist. I got a long angry lecture about not breaking anyone's joints because sooner or later they will get arthritis in that joint, they will hurt, and they will negatively remember you, probably for the rest of their lives. He said you don't want someone out there hating on you every time the weather gets cold or whatever.

My follow up comments were;

I want to make sure I understand you completely here. In a situation where you're being mugged at an ATM (or anywhere) you should make sure you don't break anything on the mugger attacking you because you don't want him to feel negative towards you later when the weather gets cold?

That you don't want him hating you for defending yourself from his attack by breaking something on him to stop him from attacking you?

I'm assuming since you were going to do a round house kick to his head, while he was on the ground (about the only time this kick is useful i.e. individual is stunned or not in a position to avoid/stop it) that it was a violent grab on your elbow and you felt the need to kick him in the head, while on the ground, because the threat was still present?

He followed with;

I could have accomplished the same result without injuring his wrist

My reply was;

Could you have? By your own admission, you were going to roundhouse kick him in the head, while he was on the ground. That sets up one of two possible scenarios;

1. He was still violently trying to attack you from the ground, which caused it to be necessary to employ lethal force against him to stop his overt, hostile attacker motions. (I think you'll find that kicking someone in the head, particularly while on the ground, is considered lethal force in a court of law. I doubt he was wearing head gear and I doubt you were wearing foot gear).
2. You threw him down and just wanted to put a little exclamation point on it. Which would put you at excessive force since he was not employing lethal force against you.

Which was it?

If the attack was violent enough to require you to grab the attacker, and throw him to the ground, and attempt to kick him in the head....then maybe worrying about him getting wrist pain ten years from now when the weather turns cold is on the bottom of the list of considerations

...sounds a bit out-of-touch too be completely straight-forward with you.

Force should be appropriate to the situation with no more force being applied than is necessary to stop the threat. So, either you were in a lethal force situation (by your feeling the need to kick a man in the head who was already on the ground) and therefore who gives a rip about him having a sore wrist...or...you over-reacted big time and you're lucky you didn't wind up in jail.

To my question in the above quote (#1 or #2) he replied "neither".

So...my comment;

Hmm, If you're going to attempt to kick a man in the head, while he is on the ground, with enough force to cause unconsciousness, then such force can also cause great bodily harm and/or death. I think you'll find that the situation needs to be at a lethal force level in order to justify this amount of force being used. One does not just 'kick em in the head' and then fall back on the reason of 'just because'.

In order to justify the use of deadly force the attacker needs to have the ability to cause you great bodily harm and/or death and you need to be in fear of your life. The actual terminology will differ from state to state, but that is the gist of what is required.

So, when this man grabbed your elbow, and you described it as 'in a threatening manner', were you in fear of your life?

My conclusion statement;

I think acting in a manner such as this person describes i.e. not injuring someone so that they don't get arthritis and dislike you when the weather gets cold is dangerous. During a physical altercation, one cannot take the time to second-guess themselves. They need to be clear as to the legal requirements of the situation and then proceed with the appropriate amount of force necessary to stop the threat. The amount of 'force' may entail;

• Running away i.e. escape if possible without putting yourself at increased risk.
• Using command presence and verbal desculation.
• A simple push.
• A joint lock.
• A strike to stun but not damage.
• A strike to damage.
• Deadly force.

And a whole range of things in-between. What ever the amount of force, one needs to be able to justify that amount. This is why I'm asking about the initial elbow grab i.e. what caused him to believe he was in a lethal force situation? What was the man doing on the ground that made him attempt to use lethal force against him while on the ground? And if he was indeed in a lethal force situation, it is bad advice to consider not using whatever force is necessary to stop the threat by worrying about the man getting arthritis later in life and hurting when it gets cold.

He never did respond to if he was in fear of his life or how the elbow grab was 'threatening' to him. He never went into further detail as to what the man was doing (if anything) when he went to the ground or what prompted him to attempt to kick him in the head while on the ground.

I'd like to get input from those that frequent this section to see what you think. Thank you.

 

[jks9199]

From your last paragraph, you asked what I would have -- and he didn't answer.

I'm not sure what "grabbing an elbow in a threatening manner" consists of, but an unwanted touching is an assault. From the accounts as presented, there's not even evidence to support an attempted robbery. He might have been about to ask for money; he might have been about to point out that he just saw a guy place a skimmer on that ATM, or let your friend know that he missed his pocket putting his wallet away... (I know, I'm stretching, but that's what an attorney would present as the situation.)

OK; your guy had a large sum of cash in hand. Let's grant that he was defending himself from what he perceived to be an attempted robbery. He proceeds to use a joint control and strike to the throat. (Lethal force is arguably already used...) The suspect falls down, and he's about to round kick him when someone intervenes. The round kick was already questionably. The initial lock & strike had pretty clearly eliminated the suspect's ability to act.

But your question, as I read it, seems to be more about the potential joint injury. It's all well and good to try to avoid doing harm; I know of one system which focuses doing little or no harm to attackers, while still successfully defending yourself. (The Bando Monk, for those interested.) It takes a great deal of discipline and emotional control.

I'm simple-minded. You try to hurt me, I hurt you. And I'm not all that sympathetic to a person who's tried to hurt me and their problems later in life as a result. I'm not saying that excessive force is justified -- but when force is justified, you have to use enough force to be sure that the threat is over. That may be a joint lock and pain -- or a .40 round to center mass, which stands a reasonable chance of killing you.

 

[WC_lun]

Honestly his story sounds a bit fishy to begin with. One of the hallmarks of someone lying is lots of detail about things that aren't relevant to the story, but details that are relevant to the story are sparse. Read his original post and you'll see this. So any follow up he has of questions from you are going to be either sparse or fabricated. I wouldn't worry about it. Sounds like another keyboard warrior

 

[Touch Of Death]

There is always one more person involved in the fight than you first expect. Don't pound in nails with a sledge hammer. You may yet need that strength to cover out of the situation. Creating grudges is bad cover.
Sean

 

[Kacey]

I, also, find the level of detail in this story somewhat fishy - especially the presence of a girlfriend whose intervention stopped the supposed attack; most muggers don't bring their SO's along for the mugging, unless the SO is an assistant.

However, to address the original question: if someone attacks me, no, I'm not going to worry about potential arthritis 10 years down the road.

That said, if, as described, the attacker (if he truly was an attacker...) was no longer a threat, and I am concerned about the emotional state of a person who thinks that it is appropriate to kick someone in the head who is already on the ground, nursing a possible broken wrist.

 

[Touch Of Death]

...I am concerned about the emotional state of a person who thinks that it is appropriate to kick someone in the head who is already on the ground, nursing a possible broken wrist.

I would do just that, but don't worry, I'll be fine.(twitch twitch)

 

[puunui]

I'm simple-minded. You try to hurt me, I hurt you. And I'm not all that sympathetic to a person who's tried to hurt me and their problems later in life as a result.

Maybe one day you will evolve to the level of the Bando Monk (you are a Bando practitioner right?) and you will care about such things.

 

[puunui]

Honestly his story sounds a bit fishy to begin with. One of the hallmarks of someone lying is lots of detail about things that aren't relevant to the story, but details that are relevant to the story are sparse.

Which details aren't relevant and which relevant details are not included that you would like to see?

 

[puunui]

I'm not sure what "grabbing an elbow in a threatening manner" consists of, but an unwanted touching is an assault. From the accounts as presented, there's not even evidence to support an attempted robbery. He might have been about to ask for money; he might have been about to point out that he just saw a guy place a skimmer on that ATM, or let your friend know that he missed his pocket putting his wallet away... (I know, I'm stretching, but that's what an attorney would present as the situation.)

Which attorney would present it in that fashion, the prosecutor? Certainly not a defense attorney.

OK; your guy had a large sum of cash in hand. Let's grant that he was defending himself from what he perceived to be an attempted robbery. He proceeds to use a joint control and strike to the throat. (Lethal force is arguably already used...) The suspect falls down, and he's about to round kick him when someone intervenes. The round kick was already questionably. The initial lock & strike had pretty clearly eliminated the suspect's ability to act.

I had another attorney read this a criminal defense attorney in the office next to mine and this was his perspective, which no doubt is different from an LEO perspective. He said that the self defense arose out of the assault and the perception of "threatening", as well as the attempted robbery. He said that lethal force was not used, even if the roundhouse was thrown. He said that lethal or inappropriate force might be argued if roundhouse kicks were kept being thrown after the robber/assaulter was knocked unconscious, but as long as there was the perception of a physical threat, then the force was appropriate and there would not be a prosecution. The fact that the roundhouse kick was not thrown, ends any "intent" issues because intent only comes into play if the kick was actually thrown. So any discussion about the "intent" to thrown the roundhouse is irrelevant for purposes of arrest and/or prosecution. He also emphasized that the standard for prosecuting is beyond a reasonable doubt, a very high standard. He said that this situation is a no brainer, no arrest and if for whatever there was an arrest, then no prosecution.

My criminal defense attorney friend said that jurors are very sympathetic to self defense scenarios. He cited to a recent local case here in which a farmer was getting his crops stolen on a regular basis by thieves. So the farmer, who lived on his farm with his family, went out to his field at night and waited for the thieves with a machete, and when they came, he cut out in the femoral artery and that person died. He was arrested, but not prosecuted because there was evidence of a weapon used in the thefts (a knife to cut the crops) and that the farmer felt "threatened" by the robbers, who he was laying in wait for in the middle of the night.

Of course, if the story was made up, then you wouldn't get prosecuted for that either.

That's three people who said the above situation is a no arrest, no prosecution situation, a police officer, a prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney.

 

[MJS]

Very recently I was in an online discussion with another martial artist. He relayed the following story;

My follow up comments were;

He followed with;

My reply was;

To my question in the above quote (#1 or #2) he replied "neither".

So...my comment;

My conclusion statement;

He never did respond to if he was in fear of his life or how the elbow grab was 'threatening' to him. He never went into further detail as to what the man was doing (if anything) when he went to the ground or what prompted him to attempt to kick him in the head while on the ground.

I'd like to get input from those that frequent this section to see what you think. Thank you.

I'll start with his comments, and work my way down. Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head. A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick. Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.

As far as what his teacher said...no, sorry,what happens to the guy who's trying to physically cause me or a loved one, bodily harm, isn't a concern of mine. Now, let me clairify, as this can sound like I'm contradicting what I said above. If all the situation warrants, is a joint lock, then fine. But if in the process the guys wrist breaks, gets sprained or 10yrs down the road, gets arthritis, then so be it. As long as my use of force is justified, then as I said, I'm not concerned with the effects of what happens. Perhaps the bad guy should've thought more about a potential outcome, before he tries to rob someone.

Of course, if its possible to get the hell out of the area, without having to fight, then great. IMO, that should always be attempted. But, as we all know, or should know, running may not always be an available option.

 

[MJS]

Maybe one day you will evolve to the level of the Bando Monk (you are a Bando practitioner right?) and you will care about such things.

Ummmm....what? Sorry, I agree with JKS. Everyone controls their own actions. Thus, if you choose to attack someone, you, as a badguy, should understand that perhaps the person you choose to rob, wont be a pushover.

BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I'll start with his comments, and work my way down. Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head. A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick. Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.

Some of the conversation is located here http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85212&page=3 beginning with post #41. The rest is in another thread, perhaps the Kong Soo Do thread? I'd have to look.

Apparently, according to a comment he made later, the 'attack' didn't happen from behind. Apparently the man walked up to his side and initiated conversation with him i.e. 'give me some money' or something to that effect. So if the defender now knows the 'attacker' is standing there to his side, how is it that it then allowed his elbow to be grabbed? Why didn't he step back, move away or leave or at least assume some type of defensive posture? Why couldn't he move his elbow? Why didn't he try to block the grab?

He claims that he talked with a police officer and two attorneys. Maybe he did, I don't know. But I would suspect the conversation as an attempt to CYA. Kicking the head is deadly force no matter how you slice it. Doesn't mean it wasn't justified, but the way the story is relayed, it doesn't appear that it was.

And as far as the part about worrying that the attacker will get arthritis 10 years from now and think about you negatively when the weather gets cold...I agree with what others have stated, not a concern.

 

[MJS]

Some of the conversation is located here http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85212&page=3 beginning with post #41. The rest is in another thread, perhaps the Kong Soo Do thread? I'd have to look.

Apparently, according to a comment he made later, the 'attack' didn't happen from behind. Apparently the man walked up to his side and initiated conversation with him i.e. 'give me some money' or something to that effect. So if the defender now knows the 'attacker' is standing there to his side, how is it that it then allowed his elbow to be grabbed? Why didn't he step back, move away or leave or at least assume some type of defensive posture? Why couldn't he move his elbow? Why didn't he try to block the grab?

He claims that he talked with a police officer and two attorneys. Maybe he did, I don't know. But I would suspect the conversation as an attempt to CYA. Kicking the head is deadly force no matter how you slice it. Doesn't mean it wasn't justified, but the way the story is relayed, it doesn't appear that it was.

And as far as the part about worrying that the attacker will get arthritis 10 years from now and think about you negatively when the weather gets cold...I agree with what others have stated, not a concern.

I'll take a peek at the other thread. So, going on what you said about the attack, well yeah, common sense, IMO, should dictate, that if someone you dont know, is walking up on you, that you'd back up, put your hands up, ie: non threatening, tell them to move, step back, whatever.

Yeah, the head kicking stuff....going on only the situation that was described, IMHO, a headkick is overboard.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'll start with his comments, and work my way down. Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head. A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick. Now, were a weapon used, yeah, thats deadly force, so I could justify that, but again, this is one of those things where I usually say its important to assess the situation and act accordingly.

As far as what his teacher said...no, sorry,what happens to the guy who's trying to physically cause me or a loved one, bodily harm, isn't a concern of mine. Now, let me clairify, as this can sound like I'm contradicting what I said above. If all the situation warrants, is a joint lock, then fine. But if in the process the guys wrist breaks, gets sprained or 10yrs down the road, gets arthritis, then so be it. As long as my use of force is justified, then as I said, I'm not concerned with the effects of what happens. Perhaps the bad guy should've thought more about a potential outcome, before he tries to rob someone.

Of course, if its possible to get the hell out of the area, without having to fight, then great. IMO, that should always be attempted. But, as we all know, or should know, running may not always be an available option.

If I was attacked at the ATM, I would not stop hitting this guy until he was done. I don't know if the rest of his friends are near, and it gets harder if he is still a viable threat.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ummmm....what? Sorry, I agree with JKS. Everyone controls their own actions. Thus, if you choose to attack someone, you, as a badguy, should understand that perhaps the person you choose to rob, wont be a pushover.

BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.

The desire to get paybacks, and eliminating a threat are two different things. Payback speaks to a victim mentality.
Sean

 

[puunui]

BTW, is the guy who's trying to rob me, steal my car, attack my wife, going to honestly give a **** about me or my wife? I think not.

So because they don't care about you, you shouldn't care about them? Is that pretty much your position?

 

[puunui]

I'll start with his comments, and work my way down. Given the fact that this was an attack from behind, and you dont know about weapons, IMO, I dont see anything wrong with the response used, right up until he said he was going to kick the guy in the head. A simple grab, doesnt, IMO, constitute a head kick.

There was no kick to the head, which I guess means you don't see anything wrong with the response in its entirety then, right? "he said he was going to kick the guy in the head" isn't the same as actually kicking that head. I have murderous thoughts about about the guy who cut me off on the freeway. Can I be charged and/or convicted of any crime if I don't act on my thoughts?

 

[puunui]

He claims that he talked with a police officer and two attorneys. Maybe he did, I don't know.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the evidence presented must be taken as true. All LEO know that.

But I would suspect the conversation as an attempt to CYA.

CYA for what? The incident happened 25 years ago. There is no danger or threat of prosecution and no reason for CYA.

Kicking the head is deadly force no matter how you slice it. Doesn't mean it wasn't justified, but the way the story is relayed, it doesn't appear that it was.

At least one police officer, one prosecutor and one criminal defense attorney disagree with you, for a variety of reasons. Again, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard. LEO arrest people all the time for what they think are crimes; that doesn't mean the person arrested will be prosecuted, much less convicted.

 

[puunui]

Here is a story that came out in today's paper. I stated earlier that Prosecutors don't like to press charges against those who are defending themselves. Here is an example.



*****

No charges will be filed in Memorial Day fight death

By Gregg K. Kakesako
POSTED: 08:52 a.m. HST, Jun 07, 2011





The Prosecutor’s Office has decided not to press charges against a 28-year-old man in connection with a fight on Memorial Day at Heeia Kea Pier which ended in the death of a 26-year-old Kaneohe man.


The Medical Examiner’s office identified the victim as Nelden Torres. He died Monday at a hospital where he was taken in critical condition after the fight on May 30.
An autopsy will be conducted on Torres today to determine the cause of his death.
Police had responded to a fight 6 p.m. May 30 and found a man unconscious and with head injuries near the boat launch area.


A 28-year-old man was arrested Thursday on suspicion of first-degree assault following a police CrimeStoppers request on Wednesday seeking witnesses and information about the fight.


However, the prosecutor’s office decided not to press charges since witnesses told police that Torres sought out the suspect at the Kaneohe pier. The suspect apparently was acting in self-defense, a spokesman for the Honolulu prosecutor said.


The victim apparently threw the first punch and was injured when he fell and hit his head on the asphalt, the spokesman said.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the evidence presented must be taken as true.

Okay, I agree with you on this 100%. I will go with what you've stated. Appreciate the correction.