Using The Weapon After The Disarm

[Big Don]

If someone comes at me with a knife, Yes, given the opportunity, I will stick it in them as many times as possible.
If someone comes at me with a gun, I might not shoot them, but, I would definitely beat them with it.

I'd horsewhip you, if I had a horse!

Groucho Marx

 

[mook jong man]

I trained for about a year under Ray Floro and we rarely ever did disarms , only a few using a bandana.He pretty much seemed to think they are ******** , too much fiddling around.I think your better off controlling the knife arm and hammering them with everything but the kitchen sink until they either drop the knife or they themselves are dropped.

 

[Chris Parker]

This might take a bit... sorry....

This is just one place where we're in disagreement, and I'll start there: the guy just tried to kill you. While killing him might not be the only option, it just might be the only available one-his ability and desire to do so probably aren't taken away with the knife, no matter how slickly you do so. If he's bent on destroying you, taking away the knife probably hasn't changed that. Now, in Speakman's clip, the assailant is pretty much just standing there waiting to be sliced up-this is a familiar complaint from some quarters as far as kenpo demonstrations go, and it is pretty unrealistic. The intention isn't to demonstrate realism, though, but how one thing flows to another.

Let's take it back a step. You're assuming a few things here, first that the attack was deliberately meditated attempted lethality, which may not really be the case. To be clear, I'm not saying that it may not be a potentially lethal attack, just that that is not necessarily the intention behind it (not that it's that easy to tell, or differentiate in the moment, as it were). Next is to look at the concept of the thread itself, which is that you have disarmed the attacker, in other words, you have managed to remove his lethal advantage. Bear in mind, the reason for the attack may simply have been that they had the weapon (providing the confidence, believed advantage etc), so disarming them may truly stop the attack completely. Honestly, the only alternatives for the attack continuing after you've disarmed them are that they are attempting to get the weapon back (as it represents their "power", and want it back), or they are on some very heavy medication, or truly psychotic, which is really about the only way they'd continue to attack you once you have the knife and they don't. Most people just aren't that suicidal that they will now, knowing their disadvantage, still attack. And if they are just trying to get their weapon back, it's not a lethal assault. So, honestly, your premise doesn't stand up there.

In terms of Jeff's clip, from what I've gone through of Kempo, this is one of their self defence techniques, so yes, it is supposed to be realistic and applicable to a degree. A flow drill would be fairly different.

Again, self-defense law is predicated upon what a reasonable person would do with the perception of imminent danger or death. They just have to think that their life is threatened, and show that it was reasonable to think as much, and respond with an appropriate level of force.

And how many reasonable people do you think would agree that stabbing and cutting an unarmed person is reasonable after the attack has stopped? And yes, taking the knife is considered stopping that attack (they may continue unarmed, but they are no longer attacking you with a knife, as you've taken it). It's not an appropriate level of force. It's the reason the guy who's attacking you in the first place is committing a crime... otherwise, who's to say he didn't attack you with a knife because he saw you carrying a gun last week, and it was an "reasonable response" to feeling threatened by your firearm? I mean, just because you don't have the gun with you now, doesn't mean you can't go and get it...

Basically, what I'm saying here is it's coming down to what we refer to in Australian law as "present ability". You've taken his knife, he no longer has the present ability to use it to attack you, therefore you are not being threatened with a lethal assault with a knife.

A knife is an appropriate level of force response to a knife attack-which is what has taken place-and one that a reasonable person might rely upon, especially once their assaillant has conveniently provided them with a knife.

Ah, the tell-tale phrasing... "a knife attack - which is what has taken place". In your own post, you're acknowledging that the knife attack threat has passed and been survived, as well as no longer being present. Now, if he pulls another knife, or a gun, or picks up a baseball bat or two-by-four, sure, go for it. But that's not the scenario we're looking at here, it's a knife attack which you have successfully escaped from, and in the process disarmed the attacker. The knife attack is no longer a factor in your decision, as it is no longer present.

Not too sure about any of that. For some, the first response, and even the second and third one is to run. Do what you have to do to get away, and then get away as soon as possible. There are also more than a few studies that demonstrate that for most of us there is a natural aversion to killing our fellow men.

I'm not talking about the fight or flight response here, as we're past that by this point in the scenario. What we're talking about is the psychology of the aftermath of the attack, which includes the effects of the adrenaline hit, the endorphin release that follows it, and the feelings of fear, insecurity, vulnerability and so on that accompanies being suddenly attacked. And the basic psychological response is to want to repay the favour with interest. Your own story, Sukerkin's story, and all the others actually support that as does all of the phrasing you are using. You're actually highlighting this very behaviour quite nicely for me.

Oh, and that "natural aversion" thing doesn't actually come into it, for a couple of reasons (but, for the record, is what I was getting at when I said the knife assault may not actually be lethal in intent...). Firstly, it's a response to a stimuli (the initial attack), not a self-originated decision, which can counterman such things. But, more importantly, the response is to punish the attacker for making you feel such negative feelings (about yourself), not to kill them. But, due to the use of the knife, killing them is a real possibility. So there is no real desire or intention to kill, but due to a natural tendancy to always look to the most powerful response available (which is doubled when such negative feelings are the source of it), then the response will be what is felt to be (unconsciously) the most powerful, which will lead naturally and automatically to using the weapon. This is what I meant when I said such things actually need to be trained out of the practitioner.

As for training not to use the weapon, sorry-just not the way I was trained. Mind you, the guy is lying on the ground screaming because I broke his arm taking the knife away? No "slicing and dicing." Guy's still coming at me and I have his knife?

Well, I'm gonna give it back to him.

Then you would have escalated to force beyond reasonable force usage. I'd suggest looking at training non-lethal usage for such scenarios... in fact, that's exactly what I teach. My knife use is designed around two criteria: end the confrontation (and the ability for continued attacks) firstly, and non-lethal as a secondary criteria. And, believe it or not, it's actually easier to perform non-lethal fight enders than it is to rely on lethal response, as most lethal response doesn't end the fight immediately (my first criteria). We also train in things like baseball bat defence that, once you have removed the bat, if they keep coming in, they are now considered unarmed, so that removes lethal force actions (such as swinging at the head). The weapon can still be used, but don't go for lethal actions.

Again, that's the appearance of it-it's meant to demonstrate a bunch of oher things, not slicing and dicing a now unarmed person who isn't pressing the attack. The appropriate level, again, is that you're responding to a lethal threat-it doesn't matter that you've disarmed them, because you can't disarm their intent.-if they've taken action that demonstrates that they give up, well, that's another story, but it also isn't what's taken place here: basically the guy is acting as a training dummy.

No, it's supposed to be a self defence technique. And it does matter that you've disarmed them. Once again, a potentially lethal attack is not necessarily a lethal intent, and this form is not representative of such anyway. For such flow drills, there are better ways of doing such, this method reinforces the idea of using the weapon against the now unarmed opponent in a dramatically overblown fashion. It is purely bad programming to put into a student.

Actually, it reminds me of Damien Ross of the "Self Defense Company", who was featured on Penn and Teller in their martial art episode of "BS", where they asked him how he would feel if one of his students over-reacted and performed these lethal actions, killing someone. His answer? He would be proud. A responsible self defense instructor should be rather horrified by that, really, and look good and hard at whether they had trained such over-reaction in the student themselves.

I mean, do you actually mean to tell us that there is no where in your ninja training that you use a weapon on an unarmed person? :lol:

Actually, it's almost never done. In the traditional side of things, there are some applications of short stick (up to Hanbo, three foot stick) that are against unarmed attacks, but they are pretty well universally controls, locks, or non-lethal strikes (I can only think of one kata, in one line of one of the systems that has what could be a lethal strike), and the only weapon used at all that is universally against unarmed opponents is the hojo cord (a restraining cord used to tie up someone who you have already subdued, who could very easily have attacked with a weapon initially... but think of the use more like old-style handcuffs). In the modern work we do is concerned primarily with the law in mind, so not in this way. Again, any use is designed around non-lethal strikes and controls.

So while I like the little laughing emoticon, it's not appropriate. Sorry.

I do not entirely agree with that Christopher, I think it is imprudent to ever imagine that because he has dropped his weapon or you have wrested it from him that he is now unarmed. Hey may or may not have other weapons. Nevertheless, he has made his position entirely unequivocal. He has saught you out to attack you. That clearly gives you legal precedent to defend and but also gives you clear directive that he is a threat to your safety or those in your care. In this instance, to assume that he is now unarmed may put you at peril.

Ah, then you are arguing with the legal system in Australia, my dear J, not with me. In our legal system, if you have disarmed someone, they are considered to be unarmed. If they then pull another weapon, that's another issue, and we go back to the square one, and all bets are off.

If he remains on the scene at all then he remains a threat to personal safety. Therefore use of the weapon in a reasonable manner to defend your person or those with you is acceptable.

Do you disagree?

But is it reasonable if he then tries to punch you for you to stab him and cut his throat? Is the punch seen as such a devastating assault that it requires such an extreme response? Or should you instead look to maybe cutting his arm as it comes in, then hitting him in the jaw with the butt of the weapon, thus ending his ability to continue to fight, but not escalating to a lethal, or potentially lethal response?

Anyway, I do not like the legal chicanery involved here. *I* am (or you are) the victim here NOT the guy with the knife!! That should never be allowed to be contorted and but it is often unfortunately.

It flips once you become the escalator or aggressor, though. Once it moves out of a "reasonable response", you will encounter such things.

Something that we all need to bear in mind, aye. Those things and fear too.

The one time I have ever had to fight in my adult life, I injured my attackers much more than I would intend to if I was being calm and logical about things. I make no pretence otherwise, I was petrified. There were three of them and they all looked like giants to me as I was stuck with my back against a lamp-post (upon which one of them smashed a bottle, as if I wasn't scared enough!).

I just wanted "away" from them as quickly as I could and I confess that I learned just how unlike sparring the real deal is, for the techniques we learn are designed to damage the human body - we just don't normally realise how badly because we don't use them full force or full speed in the dojo.

So the question then becomes, in legal terms, how much mitigation that fear-driven application of technique is granted when in a court of law.

Personally, I tend to Respond to Hostility with Anger.
The Basis is different, the Effect is the same.

NOTE: That doesnt mean if someone is remotely Hostile, ill go crazy and demolish them. Its just the Mental State, if you will

Remaining Calm and Logical becomes... Difficult. Suffice to say. It becomes a matter of Instinct.
And Instincts are Subjective to the Individual.

You can Train ANYONE in Martial Arts for as many Years as you like. But its up to them to be Effective in its Application outside of their Learning Inlet.

Now, im positive you can find People whod be able to Disarm someone and Retrieve the Weapon.
Im just as positive you can find People who wouldnt.

I've quoted these two because they highlight the response that I'm talking about pretty well (particularly Sukerkins', as well as Elder's use of a pen earlier, although that is more along the lines of getting an equaliser, which is considered reasonable, as opposed to an escalation of the situation).

In regard to Sukerkin's last question there (how much mitigation do you get?), honestly, it's likely to be close to none. You are then dealing with people who likely have never experienced it, are completely unaware of the experience and sensations, and are listening with their full conscious faculties, rather than the conscious shut down that you have in the moment. As a result, they will look at it from a dispassionate (removed) circumstance, without any understanding of the realities of what happens internally. All that means they will assume that you could think as clearly in the moment as they can when hearing about it, so no real mitigation will be given. And that should be remembered whenever the old platitude of "carried by six versus judged by twelve" comes into it.

Speaking of that....

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by 6.

Honestly, I'm not swayed by that phrase. There are a few reasons for it, particularly the lack of reality to it. For instance, it's not really any guarantee that you will get a jury trial, and therefore have people looking with the idea of common sense and reasonable thought separated from the event who you can rely on to be swayed to believe the same as yourself, you could more likely find yourself in front of a magistrate, or solo judge, with no jury, and they will be more swayed by their reading of the law. Therefore arguments of "well, I'd rather rely that others would understand" falls down, as you're actually relying on being on the side of the law. And there is no guarantee that there'll be any logic or common sense applied from the judge either. For instance, a number of years ago, a 17 year old kid who had been training in kickboxing for about 3 years got into a fight in a parking lot. He kicked his opponent in the head, knocking him down. Unfortunately, the kid who was kicked landed hitting his head on the concrete, and cracked his skull. He died a few weeks later, never waking up.

In sentencing, the judge (no jury) said that, as a "martial arts expert", the young kickboxer should have had more control, and not needed to rely on his martial skills, and was to be made an example of. He was sentenced to a minimum of 8 years in prison. The judge had no understanding of actual violence, the psychology of combat, the realities of martial art training, or anything similar, and as a result, the young kickboxer's life was changed forever.

Now, I realise that that is a different situation, as no weapons were involves, but have it now that the kickboxer is, say, a Kempo student, and is attacked with a knife. After disarming the attacker, the Kempo student goes on to kill the former attacker with their own knife, as the attacker tries to come in and get the knife back. Same judge... how are they going to read that?

In looking for the origin of that phrase (from memory, it comes from the old Wild West gunfighter times of the US, but couldn't find confirmation), I came across a blog that pretty much sums up the rest of my objections to that phrase as a defense or validation of such actions, from Rory Miller. Full of gems, that man. http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2011/06/tried-by-twelve.html

Basically, I'd rather neither. Not be carried by six, certainly, but ending up in court on assault or murder/manslaughter charges isn't what I want to aim for, either. So that's what I train for, and feel that that's what should be trained for by any responsible martial art or self defence instructor as well.

In Canada, I have the right ot defend myself by whatever means necessary, until the threat is no longer a threat. That does not give me an automatic license to kill. But if I disarmed an attacker, and he continues, I can use the weapon to defend myself. However, the multiple cuts, intentional slicing of the neck, femoral arteries and achilles tendons as demonstrated in the video would be considered an assault by me, I would cease being the victim, and become the attacker.

It is fairly common in martial arts to use "overkill" techniques, which can get you in deep legal trouble if followed out in an unfotunate real life incident.

This is basically it in a nutshell.

Essentially, once you have removed the opponents knife, they no longer are attacking you with a knife. Therefore it is not considered a lethal assault anymore, and if you respond with lethal force, that is overkill. If they pull another weapon, different story, but unless that happens, you are using a weapon to attack an unarmed person. And that's what we lock people up for.

 

[Jenna]

It flips once you become the escalator or aggressor, though. Once it moves out of a "reasonable response", you will encounter such things.

Christopher, I cannot argue specifics of cases because I do not have details and because this is not a courtroom and I am not a lawyer and I have already had my experience of a courtroom and would -as someone innocently going about her business- have nothing to fear from objective jurors or judges. It remains (by all international conventions) my legal right to defend myself irrespective of the eventual outcome.

Without criminal action on behalf of my assailant, he would not end up dead at all. He has made his choice. It is not law that I must declare myself a martial artist with a warning label. And anyway, that I am also a martial artist with some training does not preclude my fear, confusion and LACK of restraint in an attack. I am still human. Again, that he ended up wounded or got dead is his fault. He is liable for that himself. I am not.

Ah, then you are arguing with the legal system in Australia, my dear J, not with me. In our legal system, if you have disarmed someone, they are considered to be unarmed. If they then pull another weapon, that's another issue, and we go back to the square one, and all bets are off.

And but this is not such a black-and-white issue Christopher. There are precedents where victims have acted WELL beyond when a weapon has been removed and have even subsequently killed an assailant (often a spouse or partner) LONG after they have been "disarmed" because they continued to pose a threat. So there are precedents for this. Here is one from Australia if you like. Each nation has similar.
http://www.australian-news.com.au/domestic_violence_Susan_Falls.htm

Legal texts in common to most nations will state that reasonable force can be used where one reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect oneself from immediate harm. The specifics as JKS states are

- The Threat Must be Immediate
- The Victim's Response Must be Reasonable

Note, in the specific of your nation -
Self-defense is only justified if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to avoid an unlawful attack (Drabek vs Sabley). NOTE... The belief need not be correct, however.

Likewise...

Force intended to inflict death or serious bodily injury is only justified if the individual reasonably believes she would suffer serious bodily injury or death from the attack.

I would submit that someone coming at me as to strike/slash me with a knife has made their intentions wholly clear. IRRESPECTIVE of whether he is disarmed, I would believe his intention still to be clear - he intends to cause me serious injury or death. I would not be afraid to be tried on that basis.

 

[Chris Parker]

Christopher, I cannot argue specifics of cases because I do not have details and because this is not a courtroom and I am not a lawyer and I have already had my experience of a courtroom and would -as someone innocently going about her business- have nothing to fear from objective jurors or judges. It remains (by all international conventions) my legal right to defend myself irrespective of the eventual outcome.

Without criminal action on behalf of my assailant, he would not end up dead at all. He has made his choice. It is not law that I must declare myself a martial artist with a warning label. And anyway, that I am also a martial artist with some training does not preclude my fear, confusion and LACK of restraint in an attack. I am still human. Again, that he ended up wounded or got dead is his fault. He is liable for that himself. I am not.

Hence the need to be aware of the law, human responce, and have that as part of the design of modern self defence training and programs. Yes, you are human, as subject to the myriad of emotional extremes that everyone else is, but by being aware of it, you at least can have the option of training to limit the possibility of making a bad situation worse. But, I must say, there is no circumstance or set of circumstances in the world where I would have you unable to defend yourself. None at all. But I'm sure you know that.

And but this is not such a black-and-white issue Christopher. There are precedents where victims have acted WELL beyond when a weapon has been removed and have even subsequently killed an assailant (often a spouse or partner) LONG after they have been "disarmed" because they continued to pose a threat. So there are precedents for this. Here is one from Australia if you like. Each nation has similar.
http://www.australian-news.com.au/domestic_violence_Susan_Falls.htm

Legal texts in common to most nations will state that reasonable force can be used where one reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect oneself from immediate harm. The specifics as JKS states are

- The Threat Must be Immediate
- The Victim's Response Must be Reasonable

Note, in the specific of your nation -
Self-defense is only justified if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to avoid an unlawful attack (Drabek vs Sabley). NOTE... The belief need not be correct, however.

Likewise...

Force intended to inflict death or serious bodily injury is only justified if the individual reasonably believes she would suffer serious bodily injury or death from the attack.

I would submit that someone coming at me as to strike/slash me with a knife has made their intentions wholly clear. IRRESPECTIVE of whether he is disarmed, I would believe his intention still to be clear - he intends to cause me serious injury or death. I would not be afraid to be tried on that basis.

There are exceptions, and it comes down to the laywers and the judge/jury at the time. Surely you wouldn't suggest that I tell my students that, if the do then continue to use the weapon that they have just removed from their attacker, if they are charged or sued, it's fine, cause they might get off? And that case is fairly different to the situation we're discussing here.

In regard to the belief needing to be correct or not, absolutely true. But what it does need to be is something that can be described and believed (by a judge or jury) as a reasonable belief. To that end we inform our students about things like talking to the police after the event, and what to expect (whether or not they'll be arrested, what to do when/if they are, whether they need to make a statement immediately etc).

And again, continuing to attack, continuing to pose a threat is one thing. What level of threat is another. In the example you linked, the threat is continued abuse, obviously, but I'd argue the comments that say he posed no threat at the time (well, not an immediate physical one when he was drugged, perhaps), as the nature of that abuse seems to be something highly unpredictable, and the severity uncertain but increasing. The threat was therefore ever present.

 

[Jenna]

Hence the need to be aware of the law, human responce, and have that as part of the design of modern self defence training and programs. Yes, you are human, as subject to the myriad of emotional extremes that everyone else is, but by being aware of it, you at least can have the option of training to limit the possibility of making a bad situation worse. But, I must say, there is no circumstance or set of circumstances in the world where I would have you unable to defend yourself. None at all. But I'm sure you know that.

Yes, I am not arguing that we need to be aware of the law. What I would argue is that knowing the law as it applies to our own defence does not always temper our response to attacks. Nor should it. Why? Because if we are being attacked, the law has already been transgressed. We are now in the territory of aftermath courtrooms. At which point, nothing that will happen in court will save us from that attack. Therefore, all we have is the ability our art has given us to defend ourselves and spare us to even SEE that court room.

And yes, the case I referred to is different, only there is a precedent for these ex post facto actions. And in circumstances, precedents can be applied to different scenarios that is all.

Surely you wouldn't suggest that I tell my students that, if the do then continue to use the weapon that they have just removed from their attacker, if they are charged or sued, it's fine, cause they might get off? And that case is fairly different to the situation we're discussing here.

Christopher, it is not for me to suggest anything to you or anyone and what you tell your students is for you. I am only trying to relay my experience that in an attack I would have no notion of legalities or hypotheticals, that is the very very last thing on my mind. After being attacked I could barely even remember my own stupid name. What you are trained to do just comes out of you if you have trained yourself to do it properly. At that point nobody has any thought of anything except preservation.

All I am saying is that there is of course always an aftermath that must be dealt with. And but if you or your students have been INNOCENT victim of an attack and have -as a result of their attacker's violent criminal action- seriously injured or killed him then that is something that has at least kept them or those they were with ALIVE.

If you are asking me would I stab or slash someone who I thought was posturing? No.

If someone comes at me with a knife as to stick me with it then what is to doubt? There is little time to make considered opinion of the caprices of jurisprudence at that point.

I would not go into the idea of getting his knife off him in the first instance as the whole notion of dealing directly with knives is too stupid and only leads to disaster. However, if something happened and I was fortunate enough to somehow end up with his knife, would I use it on him? If he makes his exit of course not. If he was still physically attacking me, had overpowered me, was, trying to get back his knife or had me otherwise beat? Yes, absolutely I would. And I know the impossibility of righting my conscience in the afterwards times and but I would still do it again if I was ever to be condemned to the same misfortune.

I am sorry if I am coming over as all shouty. I just do not like the idea of being attacked and then being told I am wrong to have tried to avoid my own death in that attack. That whole thing is perpetrator-centric and ***-about-face. I am the victim here. NOT the guy with the knife. I am not angry, just annoyed. I apologise.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, J, I am far from upset, you're not coming over shouty at all. In fact, you're making my point for me.

As you say, in an assault, all you can rely on is your training (I can understand exactly what you mean about not remembering your name.... after an altercation [that's putting it mildly.... five of them, one of me], I asked a friend to find the number for the police to call. It's 000 here, couldn't think straight to remember that for the life of me). As a result, it behooves instructors to give their students training that understands this natural response, and trains away from it. Self defense, in it's fullest sense, needs to include defense on legal sides as well, otherwise it may save you on one side, to fail you on another.

Bear in mind, the scenario we are looking at here is that you have been attacked, and in the attack you have managed to disarm your opponent. That involves (in the vast majority) stopping an attack so that a disarm can occur (other than that, it's mainly luck, frankly). At that point, the natural instinct is to want to punish the person who made you feel weak, vulnerable etc, and the initial instinct will be to use the most powerful response you can, which may indeed be lethal. Once more, I am not suggesting you stop your defense or lower your guard.. if they really are psychotic, or on some kind or major chemicals, then you may indeed need to use potentially lethal responses in order to remain safe. But if not, then using lethal responses to what are no longer potentially lethal assaults is not the most responsible thing a self defense instructor can offer... in fact, quite the opposite. This is really getting into the very definition of reasonable force... and, of course, that depends entirely on the circumstances. A 5'2", waif-like 19 year old girl being attacked by a 6'4" muscle-bound thug who just keeps coming is a very different set of circumstances, and a very different perceived threat level to a 5'10" guy being threatened by a 5'3" skinny kid with a knife, who tried to rob him, and has lost his knife.

My point is about the responsibility of the instructor to recognise these realities, psychological, tactical, physical, and legal, and give the best possible option for the students well being, on all levels.

 

[elder999]

Let's take it back a step. You're assuming a few things here, first that the attack was deliberately meditated attempted lethality, which may not really be the case. To be clear, I'm not saying that it may not be a potentially lethal attack, just that that is not necessarily the intention behind it (not that it's that easy to tell, or differentiate in the moment, as it were). Next is to look at the concept of the thread itself, which is that you have disarmed the attacker, in other words, you have managed to remove his lethal advantage. Bear in mind, the reason for the attack may simply have been that they had the weapon (providing the confidence, believed advantage etc), so disarming them may truly stop the attack completely. Honestly, the only alternatives for the attack continuing after you've disarmed them are that they are attempting to get the weapon back (as it represents their "power", and want it back), or they are on some very heavy medication, or truly psychotic, which is really about the only way they'd continue to attack you once you have the knife and they don't. Most people just aren't that suicidal that they will now, knowing their disadvantage, still attack. And if they are just trying to get their weapon back, it's not a lethal assault. So, honestly, your premise doesn't stand up there.

Actually, my premise does hold up. I often use "drunk Uncle John" as an example in class-that person that you might not want to harm. I always speak of sequences where the assailant is killed as "decisive," because a conscious decision has to be made to do so, most of the time. In any case, though, I'm not a mind reader. Given that the sequence is shown as training, one assumes the worst-not "drunk Uncle John," a pissed off wife, or a mental patient in one's care, but someone with lethal intention, in which case if they're trying to get their knife back, it's still a lethal assault-and no, they don't have to be psychotic or on medication to continue attacking once I've taken the knife away, they may just want me dead.

In terms of Jeff's clip, from what I've gone through of Kempo, this is one of their self defence techniques, so yes, it is supposed to be realistic and applicable to a degree. A flow drill would be fairly different.

Tomato tomahtoe. :lfao:

And how many reasonable people do you think would agree that stabbing and cutting an unarmed person is reasonable after the attack has stopped? And yes, taking the knife is considered stopping that attack (they may continue unarmed, but they are no longer attacking you with a knife, as you've taken it). It's not an appropriate level of force. It's the reason the guy who's attacking you in the first place is committing a crime... otherwise, who's to say he didn't attack you with a knife because he saw you carrying a gun last week, and it was an "reasonable response" to feeling threatened by your firearm? I mean, just because you don't have the gun with you now, doesn't mean you can't go and get it...

The assault hasn't ended, just because the knife is taken away. The deadliness of the assault hasn't changed, just because the knife was taken away-the knife establishes lethal intent, and that's what is required for a reasonable person to respond with lethal force.

Basically, what I'm saying here is it's coming down to what we refer to in Australian law as "present ability". You've taken his knife, he no longer has the present ability to use it to attack you, therefore you are not being threatened with a lethal assault with a knife.

And that may be true in Australia, but in the U.S., it comes down to intent. If I believed he was trying to kill me with the knife, and I believe he's trying to kill me still once I've taken the knife away, I can reasonably respond with lethal force.

Ah, the tell-tale phrasing... "a knife attack - which is what has taken place". In your own post, you're acknowledging that the knife attack threat has passed and been survived, as well as no longer being present. Now, if he pulls another knife, or a gun, or picks up a baseball bat or two-by-four, sure, go for it. But that's not the scenario we're looking at here, it's a knife attack which you have successfully escaped from, and in the process disarmed the attacker. The knife attack is no longer a factor in your decision, as it is no longer present.

See above. The assault isn't over until the assailant is neutralized-disarming him doesn't neutralize him, and may not change his intention-more to the point, I don't know what his intention is-I'm not a mind reader-I have to assume that he's trying to kill me, and the letha; threat is still present.

The lethal threat, after all, isn't the knife-it's him.

I'm not talking about the fight or flight response here, as we're past that by this point in the scenario. What we're talking about is the psychology of the aftermath of the attack, which includes the effects of the adrenaline hit, the endorphin release that follows it, and the feelings of fear, insecurity, vulnerability and so on that accompanies being suddenly attacked. And the basic psychological response is to want to repay the favour with interest. Your own story, Sukerkin's story, and all the others actually support that as does all of the phrasing you are using. You're actually highlighting this very behaviour quite nicely for me.

You really don't want to go there, Chris.

I was carrying a fountain pen-archaic device that it is, for most of us, even back in 1981-for that very reason. I was in New York City, where I couldn't legally carry a gun or even a pocket knife and use it in self defense. I'd successfully thwarted mugging in Greece and Barcelona earlier that year-I was, if anything, a little too relaxed about the whole thing. I'd already handed over my wallet and Rolex, but it was more than a simple mugging, and the young man was supposed to knife someone-apparently as part of a gang initiation. The transit police showed up with his two friends and my property (they'd fled when I responded to an attempt to slash my face/throat with the knife, and the transit cops had grabbed them) just in time to join me in watching the young man finish up bleeding to death-one of my eyes was glued shut with his blood, which was a little icky, but otherwise I was fine: at the station,I cleaned up, and the cops got me pizza-I'd passed up on breakfast with my companions for the evening, hoping to make it to the last train home, and I was quite hungry.I ate a lot of pizza. I don't think I've ever had better pizza.

Yes.I quite calmly, deliberately, and repeatedly stabbed him with my pen-I perforated his subclavian artery, and on the second or third strike, I broke his collarbone. By then, I was probably holding him up. I was planning on responding in just that fashion the moment I gave them my watch and my wallet-if they'd simply left, well, that would have been altogether another thing. I was more than willing to give up my wallet and my watch-I've gotten two more Rolexes since then, and there really wasn't a thing in my wallet that couldn't be as easily replaced. My blood, though, is precious, and I wasn't going to let them have it. While nothing I'd done had prepared me to kill a 17 year old boy, a great many things I'd done had prepared me to not be killed by one. I've slept quite well since then-it doesn't bother me at all, the way some people think it should. More to the point, it didn't really bother me at the time-I won't deny being somewhat adrenalized, but we train for that, don't we? I didn't get tunnel vision or the shakes. I wasn't angry. I was only in fear for my life, if you know what I mean.

Then you would have escalated to force beyond reasonable force usage. I'd suggest looking at training non-lethal usage for such scenarios... in fact, that's exactly what I teach. My knife use is designed around two criteria: end the confrontation (and the ability for continued attacks) firstly, and non-lethal as a secondary criteria. And, believe it or not, it's actually easier to perform non-lethal fight enders than it is to rely on lethal response, as most lethal response doesn't end the fight immediately (my first criteria). We also train in things like baseball bat defence that, once you have removed the bat, if they keep coming in, they are now considered unarmed, so that removes lethal force actions (such as swinging at the head). The weapon can still be used, but don't go for lethal actions.

For the record, I don't rely too much on disarms, except against someone who has otherwise been neutralized-I'll take a weapon away from someone I have face down on the ground, but not so much othewise-it's just one of the things I have against the whole Speakman video above-cutting the guy up, not so much. Most of the time, I'm armed, one way or another, and these days I'd probably just shoot the guy, center of mass, twice-but the scenario itself is unrealistic: most knife attacks are ambushes or escalations, they don't happen in a vacuum, like this set appears to.

No, it's supposed to be a self defence technique.

Tomato, tomahtoe...:lol:

And it does matter that you've disarmed them. Once again, a potentially lethal attack is not necessarily a lethal intent,

And I'm supposed to know that, how, exactly? What my assailants intentions are, I mean-that he has a knife and has tried to cut me with it is a given, but I'm supposed to know that he doesn't want to kill me, he just wants to put me in my place or something, how exactly?

. It is purely bad programming to put into a student.

This might just be true-many of the Fillipino knife arts are guilty of this-and of not having less than lethal responses. A young man in New York who studied Atienza kali was recently sentenced for knifing a bouncer to death. That the bouncer was a behemoth choking out his friend, and that he did it in defense of his friend apparently didn't sway the jury-but he was crippled by his training, or lack of it, and responded the only way he knew how. On the other hand, the case shows the caprices of the legal system: on the face of the facts, he responded to a lethal threat (the choking) in defense of his friend, after repeated attempts to get the bouncer to let his friend go. The guy probably should have had more agressive representation in court, but in New York, he was pretty much doomed when the prosecutor described his knife as a military, serrated edge, tactical blade.

In any case, while I don't train quite like that, I really don't have a problem with it-the knife use after the disarm, that is. I do have problems with the disarm itself, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Actually, it reminds me of Damien Ross of the "Self Defense Company", who was featured on Penn and Teller in their martial art episode of "BS", where they asked him how he would feel if one of his students over-reacted and performed these lethal actions, killing someone. His answer? He would be proud. A responsible self defense instructor should be rather horrified by that, really, and look good and hard at whether they had trained such over-reaction in the student themselves.

Yeah, I know Damien from back in the day-he's starting to believe his own hype, and I find it hard to believe that Carl wouldn't be horrified.

 

[Chris Parker]

Actually, my premise does hold up. I often use "drunk Uncle John" as an example in class-that person that you might not want to harm. I always speak of sequences where the assailant is killed as "decisive," because a conscious decision has to be made to do so, most of the time. In any case, though, I'm not a mind reader. Given that the sequence is shown as training, one assumes the worst-not "drunk Uncle John," a pissed off wife, or a mental patient in one's care, but someone with lethal intention, in which case if they're trying to get their knife back, it's still a lethal assault-and no, they don't have to be psychotic or on medication to continue attacking once I've taken the knife away, they may just want me dead.

Sorry, Elder, I'm going to keep arguing with you...

We've already had addressed in this thread the studies that show that people tend towards being averse to killing other people, which would lead to the likelihood that the intention is not lethal. Now, what I mean by that is that the attack may be done for any number of reasons, but the end result is actually not likely to be intended to be lethal (this is not all cases, obviously, but is a factor in what we're looking at here). If we're dealing more crimes (or attacks) of opportunity, the intent is more likely to be to hurt, not kill. That doesn't make the injuries sustained any less nasty or lethal, but it does remove that whole idea of lethal intent.

When we are looking at something that involves a disarm, that most commonly means that you have managed to stop the attack, at least long enough to affect the disarm. You are then removing the knife from the attacker. The reason you have taken this to be a lethal intent attack is the methodology chosen (knife), however that could just as easily be a confidence bolster (without the intent to kill, or even thinking about that possibility, or just with the intention to scare), or a weapon of opportunity, if they suddenly feel that they want to hurt you (for whatever reason), and need and "edge" (forgive the pun...). If the attack came in without the weapon, you would not automatically go to it being a "lethal intent" attack, yeah? So what escalates it to potentially lethal (which is different to having lethal intent, again, as you're reading it here) is the presence of the knife in the attackers possession. Therefore, if they don't have the knife, that potential lethality is taken to be no longer present in the attack (and yes, I'm more than aware that you don't need a weapon to kill someone, but I'm looking at the legal aspects here). In fact, you are now seen to be the more potentially lethal side of things, as you have the greater ability to inflict greater damage.

"Drunk Uncle John" doesn't really factor into this discussion, unless he's coming at you with a knife, frankly. This is not a discussion on not harming an attacker, I'd recommend harming them. But to a degree that's proportionate to their current level of threat to you... not the level of threat you perceived a few moments ago, as you've already dealt with that. It's over. You stopped the threat of a knife to the gut by removing the knife. He no longer has it, so he can't use it. Now, again, I'm not saying don't hurt him, especially if he decides to keep coming, but that response has to be proportionate to the current threat. A punch is not answered with a slit throat.

When it comes to them wanting their knife back, that is still not a lethal threat. It may lead back to one, if they're successful, but it does not constitute one. And yeah, if you're now holding their knife, and they keep coming in to attack you, that's a pretty good indication that there's something not right going on, if they just want you dead, they'll either try to get the knife back, or, more likely, get a further escalator, like a gun. If they've chosen the knife due to a desire to kill, they're pretty aware of it's potential use, and will be rather reticent to then continue in when you now hold the exact advantage they counted on for themselves. Unless they are truly psychotic (unable to ascertain reality), in which case they may keep coming in, but that is a very different scenario, and can justify the use of the knife in a lethal form. Not necessarily, but it may.

As to your not being a mind reader, you don't have to be... but you do have to read bodies. And it's not that difficult, really. I'm sure you can see when students are acting with the intent to cause harm and when they're not, especially as the attacking partner? Due to adrenaline and a few other things, it's not that easy in a real situation, but it's still there. And the more it's trained, and the more realistically it's trained, the more accessible those abilities (to read a situation) become.

So, uh, no, the premise is not valid.

Tomato tomahtoe. :lfao:

Much though I love the way you manage to write the different emphasis in pronunciation, that's not the case here. Thrusting Lance is specifically classified as a self defense technique within Kempo, along with many other techniques. It's not a matter of us seeing it differently, it's a matter of what the technique is in the classification of the art itself, and in that case, it's classed as a self defense technique. Not a flow drill.

Tell you what, here's a list of what Kempo considers it's self defense techniques. The defenses against weapons are at the bottom, I think you'll find the one in question (Thrusting Lance, most likely mis-spelled as "trusting" lance) at the bottom, number 116: http://www.kenpomachine.com/techniques.html There are other sources, but this was one of the first ones found, and pretty easily.

The assault hasn't ended, just because the knife is taken away. The deadliness of the assault hasn't changed, just because the knife was taken away-the knife establishes lethal intent, and that's what is required for a reasonable person to respond with lethal force.

I never said the assault had ended, just that the attacker is now considered unarmed. And, legally speaking here, the knife establishes lethal potential in the attack, not lethal intent, so removing it does remove that deadliness aspect. The knife is no longer in a position for the attacker to continue to use it to assault you in a potentially lethal way. You have already responded to the potentially lethal assault, anything further is an escalation (from either side here, either you using the weapon against them in such a way, or them going and getting another weapon themselves). Slicing the carotid artery of an unarmed person, whether he was trying to get the knife back, coming in with a punch, or any other continued unarmed assault, is escalation to a lethal level on your part.

And that may be true in Australia, but in the U.S., it comes down to intent. If I believed he was trying to kill me with the knife, and I believe he's trying to kill me still once I've taken the knife away, I can reasonably respond with lethal force.

There would need to be demonstration that his continued attacks not only had the intent of being lethal, but had the ability to carry out that intent. My sister, when we were kids, threatened to get in our parents car and run me over... and I truly believed, at the time, she meant it. Of course, she was 9 at the time, and had no idea how to even start the car, but the intent was there, should I have killed her to stop her? A little more realistically, think of the "tough guy" walking away, shouting that he's going to come back and get his brother, and they'll get their guns, and they'll come back and shoot everyone, you'll see, just watch out, we'll be back! He's showing intent, do you shoot him now? Or is it just bravado, and you're over-reacting?

Intent needs to be coupled with the ability to carry it out. If you've taken his knife, he no longer has the ability to stab you with it. If he then gains present ability, go for it. If not, though...

See above. The assault isn't over until the assailant is neutralized-disarming him doesn't neutralize him, and may not change his intention-more to the point, I don't know what his intention is-I'm not a mind reader-I have to assume that he's trying to kill me, and the letha; threat is still present.

The lethal threat, after all, isn't the knife-it's him.

And this is the crux of the disagreement. No, it's not him. Yes, the threat (of a knife assault) is neutralised. That may or may not also include stopping any further attacks, but that's not the point. He can no longer attack you with the knife, which is what escalated the attack to potentially lethal. And even if his intention is to kill you, he will now need to demonstrate that (which can be as simple as him yelling "I'm going to kill you!" and keeping going with the attack... no mind reading needed.... or pulling another weapon). If he goes for control of the weapon again, that's an indication, showing his intent, which can give you justification. But it'll depend on what happens after you get the knife, not what happened before.

You really don't want to go there, Chris.

I was carrying a fountain pen-archaic device that it is, for most of us, even back in 1981-for that very reason. I was in New York City, where I couldn't legally carry a gun or even a pocket knife and use it in self defense. I'd successfully thwarted mugging in Greece and Barcelona earlier that year-I was, if anything, a little too relaxed about the whole thing. I'd already handed over my wallet and Rolex, but it was more than a simple mugging, and the young man was supposed to knife someone-apparently as part of a gang initiation. The transit police showed up with his two friends and my property (they'd fled when I responded to an attempt to slash my face/throat with the knife, and the transit cops had grabbed them) just in time to join me in watching the young man finish up bleeding to death-one of my eyes was glued shut with his blood, which was a little icky, but otherwise I was fine: at the station,I cleaned up, and the cops got me pizza-I'd passed up on breakfast with my companions for the evening, hoping to make it to the last train home, and I was quite hungry.I ate a lot of pizza. I don't think I've ever had better pizza.

Yes.I quite calmly, deliberately, and repeatedly stabbed him with my pen-I perforated his subclavian artery, and on the second or third strike, I broke his collarbone. By then, I was probably holding him up. I was planning on responding in just that fashion the moment I gave them my watch and my wallet-if they'd simply left, well, that would have been altogether another thing. I was more than willing to give up my wallet and my watch-I've gotten two more Rolexes since then, and there really wasn't a thing in my wallet that couldn't be as easily replaced. My blood, though, is precious, and I wasn't going to let them have it. While nothing I'd done had prepared me to kill a 17 year old boy, a great many things I'd done had prepared me to not be killed by one. I've slept quite well since then-it doesn't bother me at all, the way some people think it should. More to the point, it didn't really bother me at the time-I won't deny being somewhat adrenalized, but we train for that, don't we? I didn't get tunnel vision or the shakes. I wasn't angry. I was only in fear for my life, if you know what I mean.

They had a knife, you had a pen (whether it was carried for such purposes is kinda beside the point, and comes down to the laws in the location you were in at that time). That makes it an equaliser, which is different from you repeatedly stabbing an unarmed person. You stated that there was no disarm (you had "wrapped up his knife arm"), which doesn't remove the ability of his to continue with a lethal assault. If you let go of his arm, he still had control of the knife. That is a different scenario than what is being discussed here.

I'd also add that your words indicate that you did do exactly what I said would happen; you responded by inflicting punishment on someone making you feel scared. And in doing so, you did more than was necessary (as you say, you were probably holding him up as you continued to use your pen, you broke his collarbone etc), which is the natural responce. That's a pretty good real life example of what I've been saying, actually. Otherwise, once he went down, you would have let him down and stepped back away from any potential swings... but the natural responce is to punish, and respond with interest.

I'm sorry you had to go through that experience, and I'm very happy that it was entirely in your favour that day, but this is not what we are discussing here.

For the record, I don't rely too much on disarms, except against someone who has otherwise been neutralized-I'll take a weapon away from someone I have face down on the ground, but not so much othewise-it's just one of the things I have against the whole Speakman video above-cutting the guy up, not so much. Most of the time, I'm armed, one way or another, and these days I'd probably just shoot the guy, center of mass, twice-but the scenario itself is unrealistic: most knife attacks are ambushes or escalations, they don't happen in a vacuum, like this set appears to.

Honestly, other than the shooting part, I'm with you there as well. My first option is to escape. Next is to control. Only when control is established (and I'm talking real control here, not just holding their arm), that's the only time I'd consider disarming.

Tomato, tomahtoe...:lol:

Once more, it's not an opinion, it's what the technique is in Kempo. If you see other things in it, great (so do I, in terms of it's design and lessons), but that doesn't take it away from being a self defense technique within the Kempo curriculum.

And I'm supposed to know that, how, exactly? What my assailants intentions are, I mean-that he has a knife and has tried to cut me with it is a given, but I'm supposed to know that he doesn't want to kill me, he just wants to put me in my place or something, how exactly?

By being aware of the way he is attacking, and by reading the person. A threat to intimidate or scare, a cut to scare, and a cut/attack to kill are actually pretty different when it comes down to it.

This might just be true-many of the Fillipino knife arts are guilty of this-and of not having less than lethal responses. A young man in New York who studied Atienza kali was recently sentenced for knifing a bouncer to death. That the bouncer was a behemoth choking out his friend, and that he did it in defense of his friend apparently didn't sway the jury-but he was crippled by his training, or lack of it, and responded the only way he knew how. On the other hand, the case shows the caprices of the legal system: on the face of the facts, he responded to a lethal threat (the choking) in defense of his friend, after repeated attempts to get the bouncer to let his friend go. The guy probably should have had more agressive representation in court, but in New York, he was pretty much doomed when the prosecutor described his knife as a military, serrated edge, tactical blade.

In any case, while I don't train quite like that, I really don't have a problem with it-the knife use after the disarm, that is. I do have problems with the disarm itself, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The first part here just shows that it's in the best interests of the instructor to understand this reality, and design and structure self defence instruction around it. This young guys instructor failed him, as did his instruction, and his legal council... I mean, where did they get the phrase "military TACTICAL BLADE" from? It'd be from interviewing the guy, or by looking up what the blade is sold as, which leads them to ask why such a weapon was in his hands in the first place. But the details here are that it was two against one (considering the poor situation of the first, and the size of the bouncer, not a huge issue), and he introduced a weapon into an unarmed confrontation.

With the second part, the question becomes how you got the disarm in the first place. As we both say, a disarm should really only be attempted once there is control (to the point of neutralising the attackers ability to continue, at least at that moment), so if you've neutralised the attack in order to disarm, using the knife against him, after his attack has been neutralised and his advantage is removed is an issue.

Yeah, I know Damien from back in the day-he's starting to believe his own hype, and I find it hard to believe that Carl wouldn't be horrified.

That I don't doubt at all.

 

[elder999]

Sorry, Elder, I'm going to keep arguing with you...

No worries; I expected no less. :lol: Just a couple of things.

Much though I love the way you manage to write the different emphasis in pronunciation, that's not the case here. Thrusting Lance is specifically classified as a self defense technique within Kempo, along with many other techniques. It's not a matter of us seeing it differently, it's a matter of what the technique is in the classification of the art itself, and in that case, it's classed as a self defense technique. Not a flow drill.

Tell you what, here's a list of what Kempo considers it's self defense techniques. The defenses against weapons are at the bottom, I think you'll find the one in question (Thrusting Lance, most likely mis-spelled as "trusting" lance) at the bottom, number 116: http://www.kenpomachine.com/techniques.html There are other sources, but this was one of the first ones found, and pretty easily.

When I learned it, there wasn't any of the "slicing and dicing" at the end-there were basically two versions, one where the assailant dropped the knife, and one with a disarm and a single cut.

They had a knife, you had a pen (whether it was carried for such purposes is kinda beside the point, and comes down to the laws in the location you were in at that time). That makes it an equaliser, which is different from you repeatedly stabbing an unarmed person. You stated that there was no disarm (you had "wrapped up his knife arm"), which doesn't remove the ability of his to continue with a lethal assault. If you let go of his arm, he still had control of the knife. That is a different scenario than what is being discussed here.

I'd also add that your words indicate that you did do exactly what I said would happen; you responded by inflicting punishment on someone making you feel scared. And in doing so, you did more than was necessary (as you say, you were probably holding him up as you continued to use your pen, you broke his collarbone etc), which is the natural responce. That's a pretty good real life example of what I've been saying, actually. Otherwise, once he went down, you would have let him down and stepped back away from any potential swings... but the natural responce is to punish, and respond with interest.

I'm sorry you had to go through that experience, and I'm very happy that it was entirely in your favour that day, but this is not what we are discussing here.

You misunderstand. Have a look here for the significance of the words "in fear for my life."


I stopped stabbing when he dropped the knife. Then I stepped back and he fell to the floor.

 

[chinto]

OK boys and girls, here is what it is in my state. Once lethal force has been initiated, then Katie bar the door! THERE ARE NO RULES BUT BE ALIVE AT THE END!! YOU MAY USE DEADLY FORCE FROM THEN ON NO QUESTIONS! once a weapon is out, in my state it is a deadly force incident and you may take his life with that weapon if you feel that you are still under threat! he/she by bringing that weapon into play has raised the level of force to lethal. ( by the way a choke or strangle is just the same, as is an attempt to deliver a lethal strike or neck brake etc.) at that point if YOU are still breathing at the end, and they are not, justifiable homicide. I would say however that if you have taken the weapon and they are attempting to run, provably not a good idea to chase them down and do major injury... ( citizens arrest allows you to use any force necessary to keep them there.. but that I would say is something you should talk to an attorney about! )

But your matra is "I was in FEAR for my LIFE!!!!"... and SAY NOTHING else but.. " I would like an attorney/lawyer now please!" ( said advice is from several LEO's when asked about such a situation.)

I am not an attorney so ... this is not legal advice.

 

[Chris Parker]

No worries; I expected no less. :lol: Just a couple of things.

Ha, not a problem.

When I learned it, there wasn't any of the "slicing and dicing" at the end-there were basically two versions, one where the assailant dropped the knife, and one with a disarm and a single cut.

That sounds like a much more realistic approach to it, and far more appropriate. That, however, doesn't change the fact that Jeff Speakman was teaching such overkill in his version of the technique. If you didn't train that, cool. But others do, and that's the question, whether it's a good thing or not. I say no.

You misunderstand. Have a look here for the significance of the words "in fear for my life."


I stopped stabbing when he dropped the knife. Then I stepped back and he fell to the floor.

Honestly, my friend, without being there I'm not about to swear to it, but it still sounds like a lot of post-rationalisation going on... either that, or you're actually a sociopath, which I don't think is the case. There are a number of other details you put into your account that lead me to that reading of it.

OK boys and girls, here is what it is in my state. Once lethal force has been initiated, then Katie bar the door! THERE ARE NO RULES BUT BE ALIVE AT THE END!! YOU MAY USE DEADLY FORCE FROM THEN ON NO QUESTIONS! once a weapon is out, in my state it is a deadly force incident and you may take his life with that weapon if you feel that you are still under threat! he/she by bringing that weapon into play has raised the level of force to lethal. ( by the way a choke or strangle is just the same, as is an attempt to deliver a lethal strike or neck brake etc.) at that point if YOU are still breathing at the end, and they are not, justifiable homicide. I would say however that if you have taken the weapon and they are attempting to run, provably not a good idea to chase them down and do major injury... ( citizens arrest allows you to use any force necessary to keep them there.. but that I would say is something you should talk to an attorney about! )

But your matra is "I was in FEAR for my LIFE!!!!"... and SAY NOTHING else but.. " I would like an attorney/lawyer now please!" ( said advice is from several LEO's when asked about such a situation.)

I am not an attorney so ... this is not legal advice.

My legal advice for self defence/martial art instructors out there is to get legal advice, really. Find out what the laws are in your area, and make sure your students are aware of them as well. Next, look at your syllabus, and check if anything you teach goes against such laws (such as Jeff's demonstration that started all of this), then adapt if there is, or simply lose it. Finally, get some understanding of the judicial system, how to talk to police, what's likely to happen if/when the police get there, what to expect if you're arrested etc.

That's probably the best advice I can think of, and applies no matter where you are, and the laws in your area.

 

[MJS]

Lots of good posts everyone! Didn't mean to abandon the thread...had alot going on lately.

IMO, I suppose it'll depend on the situation. As far as I'm concerned, if you're faced with deadly force, then IMO, you can respond with the same. Much like empty hand SD, which often has techs, that are violent and damaging, we need to assess each situation accordingly. I think that understanding the laws of your area as well as the use of force, would be a good start.

I posted the clip, as it was a thread in the Kenpo section that was dealing with knife defense. Many Kenpo techs. tend to go on and on and on and....... but, this doesnt or IMO, shouldnt mean that we can't stop before it gets to the point where serious harm happens.

It was mentioned in the other thread, using the weapon in a fashion that isn't deadly, ie: using the butt end of the knife to strike the person.

 

[elder999]

That sounds like a much more realistic approach to it, and far more appropriate. That, however, doesn't change the fact that Jeff Speakman was teaching such overkill in his version of the technique. If you didn't train that, cool. But others do, and that's the question, whether it's a good thing or not. I say no.

And I'd say it depends on where, when and who you are. See below.

Honestly, my friend, without being there I'm not about to swear to it, but it still sounds like a lot of post-rationalisation going on... either that, or you're actually a sociopath, which I don't think is the case. There are a number of other details you put into your account that lead me to that reading of it.

A sociopath? My mom, the shrink always says, Aaron Jeffrey, you're something else. It's been considered-I undoubtedly love my mom, my wife and my kids, though-and put them first. Hell, I love God, and put him first-all of those seem to exclude me from actually being a sociopath, though there's no telling that what I mean when I say that I love them is the same as well, anyone else:we're all alone, adrift on the sea between our ears, when you get right down to it, and I do have some......tendencies, though-that's why I said you didn't want to go there.

I know that wasn't the worst experience of my life-I've sought out experiences that turned out worse-at least, worse from my point of view- and they didn't teach me nearly as much-though, I also have to say that it maybe that wasn't the best way to find out that particular item about myself-how else would I have, though? It sure beat finding out that I'm claustrophobic when I was a couple of hundred feet into a cave squirming along a tunnel on my belly with people in front of me and behind me, that's for sure!

My legal advice for self defence/martial art instructors out there is to get legal advice, really. Find out what the laws are in your area, and make sure your students are aware of them as well. Next, look at your syllabus, and check if anything you teach goes against such laws (such as Jeff's demonstration that started all of this), then adapt if there is, or simply lose it. Finally, get some understanding of the judicial system, how to talk to police, what's likely to happen if/when the police get there, what to expect if you're arrested etc.

That's probably the best advice I can think of, and applies no matter where you are, and the laws in your area.

And, among my students there is a police lieutenant, a detective, and an attorney. General self-defense law is lesson that gets emphasized over and over again-as well as what to do and say-something anyone with tendencies should know, anyway....this is good advice.

What Speakman does in the video might just be legal in New Mexico, depending on who, when and where. It would certainly be legal in Arizona, especially if the assailant were an illegal alien from Mexico, and the person doing the slicing and dicing were a U.S. citizen-at least, it would wind up like my instance back in NY did, with the prosecutor basically electing not to prosecute.....on the other hand, change some skin colors/numbers of assailants/locations/prosecutors/chemicals and/or any number of other factors, and things can go, well, either way.

 

[Zero]

We've already had addressed in this thread the studies that show that people tend towards being averse to killing other people, which would lead to the likelihood that the intention is not lethal. Now, what I mean by that is that the attack may be done for any number of reasons, but the end result is actually not likely to be intended to be lethal (this is not all cases, obviously, but is a factor in what we're looking at here). If we're dealing more crimes (or attacks) of opportunity, the intent is more likely to be to hurt, not kill. That doesn't make the injuries sustained any less nasty or lethal, but it does remove that whole idea of lethal intent.

CP, per your wording I have highlighted in bold, you seem to be mixing you legal defences and their application to the person in quesiton. The fact that the (original/initiating) assailant's intention was not one of murder or lethal in nature goes to the mens rea of the assailant. Whereby, if the assailant is alive and prosecuted and the victim is left face down, the assailant may not be guilty of murder but rather manslaughter or a lesser crime - if there was no "lethal intent" (in your words). When focusing on the "defendant" or respondent/victim of the initial attack, it is not so much whether the attacker's subjective intent was lethal but what the defendant was faced with and whether they were of the belief that they, or those with them, were subject to a lethal attack. The proportionality of their response and use of reasonable force - in the circumstances - goes to the mitigation of self defence. Defendant's have been acquited where they have used force and it later transpired that those they used force on actually did not intend harm to the defendant at all (complete lack of "lethal intent" (your words). However on analysis of the facts and the particular situation the defendant found themself in, they were justified in their actions as having acted reasonably.

However, in general I understand where you are coming from. I must say personaly I hate this view but legally it will may require very extenuating circumstances, dependant on the jurisidiction, where you have disarmed an assailant, perhaps taken them to the ground, and then assaulted/killed them with said weapon. I use to argue this point with my criminal law lecturer, a professor of criminal law. I would argue: "how can I know in the moment, even if I have taken the "knife" that this assailant is not, even though having disarmed them, capable of taking it from me or using someting else in the locality or just their own strength to still harm/kill me. Why can I not stab this guy (even in the back) to neutralise the threat. If I have nothing to immobilse the guy with and he is not unconscious, how do I know my life is safe?" The professor for perhaps different reasons to you still fedlt my argument flawed from a legal perspective, at least in the realms of self defence and seemed to side with your overall gist. I recall many of my fellow class mates looking at me with varying appalled expressions.

Ps - sorry about typos am in a rush to exit!

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear there, I wasn't actually discussing the legal side of things at that point. I feel that arguing fear for your life (belief of lethal intent) when a knife is involved is pretty much a given, if it comes down legal proceedings and events. So I'm not talking about arguing in the bad guys favour in any way...

What I was referring to was more an ethical, or moral approach to the situation, based on the reality of the situation. Taking the cue from Elder's hypothetical "Drunk Uncle John", I was basically saying that developing the ability to tell what is lethal intent in an assault, and therefore requires such a strong response, versus an attempt to "scare", and might not is important. It comes down to whether or not you want to have the unrequired death of another person on your conscience or not.