World Jiu-Jitsu Champion Killed

[TularosaKungFu]

That isn't a sport thing. That is not being a sociopath think.

Regardless of the style I was training. I was always trying not to kill people.

Oh in your personal for-public opinion and virtue signalling duly noted - mao yin

 

[drop bear]

Oh in your personal for-public opinion and virtue signalling duly noted - mao yin

Fine. What is your body count then?

 

[Darren]

Sorry to hear that you lost your instructor like that. Do you know how it came about? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

My instructor was Korean, he brought a friend over from his home land to help him, the friend of his confronted him at the school after hours and shot him. I had quit the school a few years before this happened as I was taking kenpo at the time just goes to show ya that know matter how good you are, a bullet can end your life just like that!! Even my kenpo instructor with 30 years training in different arts even carried a gun!!!!

 

[isshinryuronin]

The reason traditional east asian MA are often branded as old fashioned, 'crap,' unwilling to evolve, or just fake, seems to be this very potential - of someone pulling a gun on you. And so those traditional MA apparently fell out of favour not because they were suddenly shown up for lacking insight or practical experience or knowledge - but because guns made them redundant.

Guns had little to do with the development or evolution of empty hand combat. In Okinawa, Japan and perhaps China as well, guns were restricted to the military and forbidden to private citizens. I think this has not changed to this day. Prior to the 20th century, even in the army guns were mostly reserved for elite units.

Even if guns were allowed for the general population, 90% of them were peasants who were lucky if they could afford a good axe and knife, perhaps a spear.

I also disagree that TMA "fell out of favor" at any significant time other than being banned in Japan just after WWII for just a few years. It was always an esoteric art with limited practitioners up until the 1920's.

Talking about the military (in Japan), striking arts were not all that effective in early warfare due to armor, so ju-jitsu-like arts were more useful. Guns rendered armor useless, and this loss of armor now made striking arts more effective. So, if anything, guns encouraged the evolution of striking arts!

 

[JowGaWolf]

So many words....
He made a mistake in not finishing the person either dead or unconscious and that does appear like sports thought by habit or accident?
You can take a gun away if you get the chance and whoever keeps saying "gun is gun" to win the argument must not be much of a black belt?
It was very unfortunate and I think the virtue of the boy's character was part of not just "dragon squash roach" handling it.
But in the end, I wasn't there.

I wasn't there either which is a good thing. That means I was in the right place when something bad happened. We still have crazy's in the state and unfortunately it only seems like the beginning.

Guns had little to do with the development or evolution of empty hand combat. In Okinawa, Japan and perhaps China as well, guns were restricted to the military and forbidden to private citizens. I think this has not changed to this day. Prior to the 20th century, even in the army guns were mostly reserved for elite units.

Even if guns were allowed for the general population, 90% of them were peasants who were lucky if they could afford a good axe and knife, perhaps a spear.

I also disagree that TMA "fell out of favor" at any significant time other than being banned in Japan just after WWII for just a few years. It was always an esoteric art with limited practitioners up until the 1920's.

Talking about the military (in Japan), striking arts were not all that effective in early warfare due to armor, so ju-jitsu-like arts were more useful. Guns rendered armor useless, and this loss of armor now made striking arts more effective. So, if anything, guns encouraged the evolution of striking arts!

Empty hand fighting will aways be of value and importance. It is the exact situation that police officers found themselves in on January 6th. It's the exact same situation that someone find himself in when he was stabbed multiple times with a knife. I don't think it will ever go away. It will always be valuable. It just might not always be applicable to a situation.

 

[Steve]

That isn't a sport thing. That is not being a sociopath think.

Regardless of the style I was training. I was always trying not to kill people.

I agree with this and it's a point i tried to make earlier to @JowGaWolf , who was saying the same stuff as this guy. At some point, if you're in a situation and not a sadist, you stop when you believe the situation is under control. When you stop is entirely contextual, but at some point it's no longer self defense. There's risk in this every time, but you make the best judgment you can in the moment. Most people survive because even if you're fighting a d-bag in a bar, they aren't usually homicidal. AND, sometimes, even well trained people (like cops) make errors and are shot.

The common denominator for survival isn't the training, it's the absence of maniacs with guns.

I wasn't there either which is a good thing. That means I was in the right place when something bad happened. We still have crazy's in the state and unfortunately it only seems like the beginning.

Empty hand fighting will aways be of value and importance. It is the exact situation that police officers found themselves in on January 6th. It's the exact same situation that someone find himself in when he was stabbed multiple times with a knife. I don't think it will ever go away. It will always be valuable. It just might not always be applicable to a situation.

you think the officers who survived on January 6th during the insurrection survived because they were skilled in, hand to hand combat? That is a creative take.

 

[JowGaWolf]

you think the officers who survived on January 6th during the insurrection survived

I never made a reference to survival. I just pointed out that they had to resort to it.

 

[geezer]

....That is a creative take.

Creativity is nice. I like creativity ...but then I'm an art teacher.

Other than that, I think the Capitol Police went a long way to avoid using deadly force. Not entirely, but they obviously weren't there to mow down the crowd or seriously injure people ...which is as it should be. So that left them with less lethal means of deterrence and control, including empty handed skills, sorta. Not exactly MA though.

Can you even use MA skills to control a riot? I doubt it!

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with this and it's a point i tried to make earlier

You are all over the map dude.

The common denominator for survival isn't the training, it's the absence of maniacs with guns.

You can't control the number of maniacs with guns that the world gets. The only thing you can control is your training and your thinking and how it applies to the situation at hand.

 

[Steve]

I never made a reference to survival. I just pointed out that they had to resort to it.

Okay.

You are all over the map dude.

The thread has been wide ranging and you've been right next to me the entire way. We've covered a lot of ground.

You can't control the number of maniacs with guns that the world gets. The only thing you can control is your training and your thinking and how it applies to the situation at hand.

on this we agree. I think if we can both agree that there are some situations that are within our control and some that are not, I'm good. We don't have to agree on where the line is drawn.

For example, in the situation in the OP, I don't agree he had a lot of influence over that... it was a maniac with a gun, as best as I can tell. You think it's his fault because he engaged, and he shouldn't have. Fine. This is the basic disagreement I noted with another person.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Can you even use MA skills to control a riot? I doubt it!

Watching the video clips, I saw a lot of instances where a Martial Arts skill would have been applicable. Now if you are looking to roll as an option then I would advise against that. But striking, disarming, kicking, restraining. All of these attempts were made. Would it have made a difference in stopping the crowd? nope. but it may have protected the officers with the exception of the chemical spray. The only thing that one can do with a crowd that size is find a narrow point of entry. and hold your ground from there. Nothing short of a drop down gate or spear points would have stopped the entry. The police were greatly outnumbered and there was no way to hold that many people from advancing while being on the outside. I think they could have held them off at key points. but that's a different story. Sort of like a zombie scenario (what would do if zombies were trying to break into your house and you didn't have a gun.. Probably run across the same solutions for a riot trying to break in.

 

[Steve]

Creativity is nice. I like creativity ...but then I'm an art teacher.

I love that.

Other than that, I think the Capitol Police went a long way to avoid using deadly force. Not entirely, but they obviously weren't there to mow down the crowd or seriously injure people ...which is as it should be. So that left them with less lethal means of deterrence and control, including empty handed skills, sorta. Not exactly MA though.

Hey, this is a good point, and I think hits at the heart of the disagreement here. I think martial arts skills could definitely help, to a point. But that is entirely dependent on a crowd that is leaning in the direction of harming, but not trying to kill, those officers. Let me say it a different way. If the mob was truly out of control and out for blood, those Capitol Police and the legislators wouldn't have had a chance. As bad as it was, it could have been a LOT worse.

Can you even use MA skills to control a riot? I doubt it!

Me too. But I think you might increase your odds for survival provided the mob isn't determined to kill you.

 

[JowGaWolf]

For example, in the situation in the OP, I don't agree he had a lot of influence over that... it was a maniac with a gun, as best as I can tell. You think it's his fault because he engaged, and he shouldn't have. Fine. This is the basic disagreement I noted with another person.

Let me clarify it.
1. The guy didn't start off with a gun. He started off with a bottle.
2. The point of which to try to influence aggression is when he has a bottle.
3. If your aggressor is no longer waving a bottle at you and pulls a gun out, then the situation has escalated. Self-defense 101 De-escalate.
4. The options to do something else only existed when the bottle was in play.

This is where my thoughts on the situation end the reason I still don't talk about the gun is because at that point, the situation has hit a point of no return. This is why I focus only at the point before the gun was drawn and fired. Had there been a long pause between drawing the gun and firing it, then there may have been some other opportunities. But base on how the article was written there was no pause between drawing the gun and firing it. Because of this, MY FOCUS IS ONLY ON WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE GUN WAS PULLED.

NO WHERE HAVE I PLACED FAULT ON LO OR THE SHOOTER. I've already told you this and you still get it wrong.
I NEVER SAID LO SHOULDN'T HAVE ENGAGED. There were other options. Engagement doesn't only mean to "take someone down"

If you can't understand anything that I just posted then it's on you. I can't help ya.

 

[Steve]

Let me clarify it.
1. The guy didn't start off with a gun. He started off with a bottle.
2. The point of which to try to influence aggression is when he has a bottle.
3. If your aggressor is no longer waving a bottle at you and pulls a gun out, then the situation has escalated. Self-defense 101 De-escalate.
4. The options to do something else only existed when the bottle was in play.

This is where my thoughts on the situation end the reason I still don't talk about the gun is because at that point, the situation has hit a point of no return. This is why I focus only at the point before the gun was drawn and fired. Had there been a long pause between drawing the gun and firing it, then there may have been some other opportunities. But base on how the article was written there was no pause between drawing the gun and firing it. Because of this, MY FOCUS IS ONLY ON WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE GUN WAS PULLED.

NO WHERE HAVE I PLACED FAULT ON LO OR THE SHOOTER. I've already told you this and you still get it wrong.
I NEVER SAID LO SHOULDN'T HAVE ENGAGED. There were other options. Engagement doesn't only mean to "take someone down"

If you can't understand anything that I just posted then it's on you. I can't help ya.

Dude. I understand you, and have all along, though I will admit now there is no way I could ever convince you of that. Your points aren't complex.

We're at the point where, even when I'm pointing to common ground, you're freaking out. Take a moment and don't respond when you're obviously really angry. Or heck, don't respond at all. I'm cool with that, too.

Edit: Just one point of clarification. You seem upset at the idea you are blaming the victim. Yes, you are doing that. If you are suggesting he was shot because of something he did, we just disagree on that.

Also, yes, I know you're not blaming the shooter. I disagree with you on that, as well. It is entirely the shooter's fault Lo was shot. 100%, in my opinion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We're at the point where, even when I'm pointing to common ground, you're freaking out. Take a moment and don't respond when you're obviously really angry. Or heck, don't respond at all. I'm cool with that, too.

I'm not angry. I put the text in BOLD SO YOU CAN SEE IT. The only things I comment on were the things you claimed I said but I didn't. So are you saying that I can't correct you when you accuse me of saying something that I didn't?

Edit: Just one point of clarification. You seem upset at the idea you are blaming the victim. Yes, you are doing that. If you are suggesting he was shot because of something he did, we just disagree on that.

Wow. Amazing. Go back up and look at my comments that I put in Bold. I literally put it in bold so you can see it and you still get it wrong. Like I said dude. If you can't understand what that last post with the bold print then I can't help you.

Also, yes, I know you're not blaming the shooter. I disagree with you on that, as well. It is entirely the shooter's fault Lo was shot. 100%, in my opinion.

ha ha ha.. like I said dude. I can't help you. PP

 

[Alan0354]

I'm not angry. I put the text in BOLD SO YOU CAN SEE IT. The only things I comment on were the things you claimed I said but I didn't. So are you saying that I can't correct you when you accuse me of saying something that I didn't?


Wow. Amazing. Go back up and look at my comments that I put in Bold. I literally put it in bold so you can see it and you still get it wrong. Like I said dude. If you can't understand what that last post with the bold print then I can't help you.


ha ha ha.. like I said dude. I can't help you. PP

I agree with the Bold to attract attention, nothing angry or rude. I've been doing this from day one to draw attention.

So please don't take it the wrong way.

 

[Steve]

I'm not angry. I put the text in BOLD SO YOU CAN SEE IT. The only things I comment on were the things you claimed I said but I didn't. So are you saying that I can't correct you when you accuse me of saying something that I didn't?

I'm not accusing you of anything. But so you know, when you bold something and type in all caps, it's usually interpreted as yelling... which I think is reasonably interpreted as you being angry. That's not just me. That's internet etiquette going back to the mid 1990s.

Wow. Amazing. Go back up and look at my comments that I put in Bold. I literally put it in bold so you can see it and you still get it wrong. Like I said dude. If you can't understand what that last post with the bold print then I can't help you.


ha ha ha.. like I said dude. I can't help you. PP

Cool. You did say, in bold, "NO WHERE HAVE I PLACED FAULT ON LO OR THE SHOOTER." I have tried to explain to you that you're mistaken on the former. Whether you will admit it or not, I think I've been pretty clear how, in spite of your insistence otherwise, your entire position blames the victim.

On the latter, right, we agree that you aren't blaming the shooter. I think you're wrong on that one, as well.

For what it's worth, I think you're behaving pretty poorly right now. It's clear you're upset, but you're acting like a child at this point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with the Bold to attract attention, nothing angry or rude. I've been doing this from day one to draw attention.

So please don't take it the wrong way.

You are good. you make it clear when you have had enough. You don't leave room for guessing. You've been straight forward about that since day one. For me personal, when you type in bold print, you are just creating emphasis on the part that you want people to really focus on.

I'm not accusing you of anything. But so you know, when you bold something and type in all caps, it's usually interpreted as yelling... which I think is reasonably interpreted as you being angry. That's not just me. That's internet etiquette going back to the mid 1990s.

Internet Etiquette from you lol... like I said before Because you keep missing it. Dude I can't help you. PP

Whether you will admit it or not, I think I've been pretty clear how, in spite of your insistence otherwise, your entire position blames the victim.

That's your read and you are the only one saying it. Oh yeah by the way. Dude I can't help you. PP

On the latter, right, we agree that you aren't blaming the shooter. I think you're wrong on that one, as well.

For what it's worth, I think you're behaving pretty poorly right now. It's clear you're upset, but you're acting like a child at this point.

I can't help you man.

 

[Steve]

You are good. you make it clear when you have had enough. You don't leave room for guessing. You've been straight forward about that since day one. For me personal, when you type in bold print, you are just creating emphasis on the part that you want people to really focus on.


Internet Etiquette from you lol...

Not from me. It's literally been like that for over 25 years.

like I said before Because you keep missing it. Dude I can't help you. PP


That's your read and you are the only one saying it. Oh yeah by the way. Dude I can't help you. PP


I can't help you man.

So you can hopefully relax a little, I think it's really sweet that you were trying to help me. If it will allow you to calm down, I want to assure you that I'm okay. I'll be fine without your help. But as I've said before, I think it will help you to remember that old ignore button. If you need it, it's there for you. I won't take it personally, even though it's obvious you really want me to.

Earlier in the thread, you made a comment something about me getting into fights. Well, you know, I get it. I can see how you get angry and start fights yourself. You have a temper, for sure. So, when you say you wanted to hurt folks when you were younger, I believe you.

 

[Alan0354]

OK guys, I am not going to join in all the discussions so far. But since my grandson is not coming to stay until tomorrow, I have time to burn today as I put in like 2 1/2 hours of exercise today already. I am going to change the subject a little:

Anyone of you carry weapons? I don't necessary mean lethal, I include non lethal. I myself carry a cane as my first line defense as I practice stick fight as all you know already. I also carry a pepper spray in my left pocket all the time. I am thinking about adding more.

I have been looking into knife, it's legal to carry in pocket particular if I clip it in my pants' pocket and show the clip and if the knife is manual open. This is for in case I lose my stick( you never know, you see a lot of times people lost their stick in competitions). I have been practicing with a plastic knife on the heavy bags lately.

Another thing I just bought is the smallest stun gun with flash light:
Amazon.com : Guard Dog Security Hornet World's Smallest Stun Gun Keychain with Mini LED Flashlight – Mini Stun Gun – Personal Defense Equipment – Rechargeable Stun Gun – with Carry Case (Black/Black 2-Pack) : Sports & Outdoors

It is really really small, easily carry in the pocket.

I look at it this way, for day to day, or even see thugs picking on old people, I can intervene using non lethal weapon like pepper spray or stun gun if the thug does NOT have a weapon. Of cause I can escalate to cane or knife if ever needed.

I am thinking about getting a conceal carry gun permit also, I have so many guns it's not funny and I am a pretty good shot from years of range practice. But I really don't want to go there so far.

I don't have a strong opinion, you guys can join in if you find this interesting.


Ha ha, I am a peaceful person, not like you guys that are so violent!!! 😂 😂 😂 Just kidding 😂