PDA

View Full Version : Can you Kill?



John Lindsey
27th October 2001, 15:57
Can you kill a fellow human being? If faced with a dire situation in which it would be socially (and legally) acceptable to defend yourself by killing your opponent, could you do it?

Mark Brecht
27th October 2001, 16:13
If I would not believe that I would be capable of taking somebodies life when it needs to be done, than I would not waste my time and especially not my teachers time studying MA...

Hm, no matter the circumstances of the event, and the justification. I think most people will still be left traumatized with guilt and regrets. However it will be better to live with that than to be dead...

Steven Malanosk
27th October 2001, 19:27
Guilt ,regret, confusion as to exactly how one feels, is the status quo, as to the experience of yours truly.

During the period in which dealing with the mortality of human beings is active, one becomes detatched after awhile, as a matter of necessity. This catches up after awhile.

When hearing about the "crazy vet" one must realize that a young person who is subject to such things, that does not experience an ill effect, is the one who is crazy.

Thats military experience explained, now put the same text of situation, to civilian circumstance.

The variable, is in, why.

It takes a special kind of person, to kill, without emotion.

But your emotions DO catch up.
Sometimes it may become necessary, but......................

Rightious and justifiable as it may be, its always there later.

Think about that, the next time you perform a mock killing technique.

Michael Becker
27th October 2001, 22:36
I dont know and hope I never find out.

Don Cunningham
28th October 2001, 03:56
Been there...Done that....

Jason Chambers
28th October 2001, 06:57
Originally posted by Don Cunningham
Been there...Done that....

:D

Well now I think that covers just about everything for Don...

But seriously, that has to be one of, if not the most thought prevoking questions posed on E-Budo since I have been here. It is defintately a good one.
Myself and many members of my wife's family have had thoughts of the homicidal nature at one point over a long standing, unresolved death in my wife's family (our 2 yr old neice was raped and murdered by her mother's "bf" 5 yrs ago).

Although I prescribed to the "temper justice with mercy" philosophy, I do believe that I could if necessary. Hell, if I couldn't why would I have joined the Army (we're all 11Bravos by training in the Army; cooks or not ;))? Why would I have gotten into law enforcement? Both trades may require such an act.

I do think that I would grieve, however, to some degree. Be it from guilt or otherwise. I do not believe that a person is truely born evil, but learns to be through exposure. Deep down there is good in every human, the "evil" one have simply lost thier connection to that good.

Granted there are some who are hopelessly devoted to evil, but you cannot help but pity thier poor souls for having blackened.

Just my take.... :smilejapa

MarkF
28th October 2001, 09:32
I can't vote in the poll. The one answer I need is not there.


Mark

George Kohler
28th October 2001, 09:40
Originally posted by MarkF
I can't vote in the poll. The one answer I need is not there.


Mark

What is it, maybe? :)

Well, I don't think John L would have any problems with that question. Just look at a drawing of him in CQC forum.

passions108
29th October 2001, 03:19
if you are not prepared to kill, you can't possibly do the martial arts correctly

Kyukage
29th October 2001, 03:27
Originally posted by passions108
if you are not prepared to kill, you can't possibly do the martial arts correctly

um ... pardon me, but have you lost all your senses?

Are you really ascerting that martial artists must all be able, prepared, and willing to kill in order to get any part of martial training correct?

Just curious.

Kimpatsu
29th October 2001, 05:21
Passions108 is talking absolute nonsense (I was going to use a stronger word here, but I think the moderator would have censored it). Budo is about improving the self; it has nothing to so with killing. Let me guess: Passions has daydreams about defeating overwhelming odds and saving the day/damsel in distress/world for democracy (pick one).
My advice: Get over it. Such attitudes (I'm only learning MA so I can kill?!) are dangerous. See you at your trial.

Kimpatsu
29th October 2001, 05:27
I just took the poll, and it seems that I'm the only one to answer, "No." It's a little lonely out here :cry:
Seriously, though: MA is not the military, so comparisons between learning to punch and learning to shoot are bogus IMHO.
Leaving aside the question of whether I have the "guts" to kill, as I could say, "Yes" now and balk at the time (since the issue is so momentous, I can't visualize it happening to the extent that I can supply a definitive answer), I would say that if you kill an agressor, no matter how "evil" they may be, you rob them of their chance to reform. Does anybody else agree with me, or am I truly a minority of one? I'm curious to know...

Sgathak
29th October 2001, 05:30
All passions said was "prepared". Which to me makes sense. Not nessesarily that death and killing are all you think about. But that if you pick up the sword, you should at least be PREPARED to use it...



J Robbins

Jason Chambers
29th October 2001, 06:35
Originally posted by passions108
if you are not prepared to kill, you can't possibly do the martial arts correctly

Is that what you think martial arts training is for? Training to kill?


Prepared = a play on words and you know it...

Steven Malanosk
29th October 2001, 06:37
Budo, literally translated means STOP THE SPEAR WAY.

It is meant to prevent violence. The irony here, is that often one must fight to prevent.

The english translation most popular to Bu is Martial.

Martial means military.

All the talk in the world, on this subj. matter, is cheap.

The question was, can you walk the walk? so to speak.

Either way, you'll never know untill, God forbid, you have to find out.

You never have, well you better knock on wood

And be sure it isnt good

Oh, and what was the title of that famouse video?
Budo, the art of..........................

Kimpatsu
29th October 2001, 09:10
Steve is superficially correct when he writes that the character "bu" means to stop a spear, but it's not meant to be taken literally. The spear represents violence, which includes empty hand.
I still don't believe in killing, though.

Sgathak
29th October 2001, 15:59
I dont think you need to want/enjoy/train for killing or the the thought there of as your "goal"... HOWEVER... I do feel that there is a responsibility inherent to learning an art which was born in blood shed (despite ANY reason for training in it now). That responsibilty is being, if need be, prepared to use those skills which you have so diligently honed. MUST you use those skills to their ultimate conclusion? Absolutly not, in fact many if not most would say that its the goal itself NOT to use those skills to their extremes. However, if you are not at least PREPARED to use those skills to their ultimate end... What are ya doing? There are better uses of your time if you find martial arts too "martial" for you. Bonzai, Cha-do, oil painting, powerlifting, basketball. Im not saying you ever have to WANT to kill, but if your not even PREPARED (in the mind) to do it if the time comes (Which I sincerly hope it does not) then why PREPARE the body for an eventuality which you wont be able to follow through with?



J Robbins

Don Cunningham
29th October 2001, 17:02
The second part of my earlier post seems not to have made it online. I meant my comment, "Been there...Done that..." as a metaphor for the importance of desensitization about the victim when using lethal force.

For the best analysis of why desensitization is important, how our military uses it, and why we are seeing higher gang violence due to it, read On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman.

From my personal experience, I saw the survivors of lethal force encounters exhibit the full range of emotions, from those who cried and obsessed about it to those who viewed it as no different than any other unpleasant task. I even saw those who enjoyed it. Of course, we dehumanized our victims with deragatory nicknames and used training exercises to overcome inherent resistance to such actions.

Personally, I am concerned that so many seem to accept it but only under controlled conditions. Apparently the Taliban is using such propoganda to generate support for the end of our bombing. Many seemed overly concerned for the civilian casualties in our current campaign. What did they expect? Whenever you have ordinance being used in that quantity, there are going to be persons killed, regardless of being military targets or not.

During a coffee break discussion recently, one of my colleagues argued that it was inhuman to kill innocent civilians. He stated that they have just as much humanity as any others. His argument was basically that Afghanistan mothers cry just as hard for their children as American mothers. Yet, he was appalled at my reply, i.e., "They don't if you kill the mother first."

On the surface, it may seem inhuman and cruel. What do you think war is? It is inhuman and cruel. If one is going to engage in it, then one should be prepared for the consequences.

I think we've entered into a new phase of warring. It has happened many times during the history of mankind. During biblical times, wars were often fought by champions. The troops massed on two opposing sides, then sent their champions in for a fight. This is illustrated in the story about David and Goliath.

The Japanese were appalled when they first encountered the mongols. They were used to sending out their best samurai, who after announcing his linage, prepared for individual combat. The mongols, though, just shot them full of arrows and rushed the Japanese troops. It must have seemed just as horrific to them as when we watched our own planes crash into the World Trade Center towers.

It wasn't that long ago when wars were fought by lining the troops up on each side, then shooting at each other until one side broke and ran. In those scenarios, the idea of civilian casualties is outrageous. Yet, we have seen a new enemy and a new kind of assault. It will take a new attitude toward war and civilian death tolls. If we don't adapt to this kind of war and prepare our national will for the associated costs, we may not be able to survive the future. I am just as sad as anyone about this terrible truth, but it can not be denied.

Sorry for getting on my soapbox and contributing to the thread drift, but I couldn't help it...

Steven Malanosk
29th October 2001, 17:13
Hey Tony,

As a Shorinji Kempo man, you must be familiar with the Kongo Zen teachings, which is against killing. Ah, but So Doshin had an interesting past though.....................................

Once again, the question was could you, not would you want to.

Thanks for the SUPERFICIAL agreement, but in the case of non lethal mindset, lets remember that Aikido was founded on the beleif that there would never be another war.

Many of the supposed non lethal "in theory" arts, where pushed to appease General McCarther.

The Do, became extant, at the expence of the Jutsu.

Wu or Bu means peace at the price of eternal vigilance.

Killing is wrong, should be avoided, but beleive in it? You had better, because it surly exists in this world.

Miyagi Sensei, said, Dont be the one to get hit.
Dont be the one to hit someone.
Avoid conflict.

But, MAN!, he left us some interesting Bunkai, in case the first 3 theories didnt pan out!

" Thou Shall Not Kill "

Forgive me

dainippon99
29th October 2001, 22:51
what is worse? killing an agressor, or losing a loved one?

remember, you are practicing the very techniques that were developed to take lives by the japanese. budo training gies many things, and i think that one of those things is the mental fortitude to make decisions like killing (but not just that). you also have to remember that this is all talk, only speculation.

if your not willing to protect loved ones, which is the only reason i could find for killing another, then you should maybe wise up a little, because in this day and age, it might someday come to it.

Dale
30th October 2001, 10:45
My practice of Budo is centred around the dispelling of confusion and the maintainence of peace. If faced with a situation where eliminating an aggressive individual was the only means to a peacefull resolution then I can say, from this sheltered standpoint, that I would be capable.
However, I do not believe that this form of crisis resolution is as essential as often as statistics would have one assume.

Respectfully yours
Dale Elsdon
(Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu Bujutsu)

Kimpatsu
30th October 2001, 14:00
Everyone here is guilty of a logical fallacy. You all assume that the only way to take someone down is to kill them. If that were true, the police would have a lot more dead bodies on their hands.
This is an illegitimate use of the "or" operand. It is not "kill or be killed," it's stay safe by disabling (not killing) the other person.
Killing is still wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Son of Thunder
30th October 2001, 19:54
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Everyone here is guilty of a logical fallacy. You all assume that the only way to take someone down is to kill them. If that were true, the police would have a lot more dead bodies on their hands.
This is an illegitimate use of the "or" operand. It is not "kill or be killed," it's stay safe by disabling (not killing) the other person.
Killing is still wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I would have to disagree. What we are engaging in here is not about whether or not we think we will kill, or if we think that killing is a good thing. It's about an introspective process. We are examining ourselves (keeping in mind Socrates' claim that the unexamined life is not worth living) to see if we intellectually and emotionally are willing to take a life if necessary. And I think that this is a valuable process, especially when we are learning techniques that can be used to kill. It seems to me that learning how to kill but not specifying when to kill would be irresponsible. If you think you will never ever ever kill, then why learn the techniques?
No-one here is saying that killing is a good thing. No-one here is saying that they want to kill.

BTW, you do not really believe that all killing is wrong. Otherwise, you would have starved to death by now.

Sgathak
30th October 2001, 19:56
And I think that your guilty of assumption.

I think that you must be PREPARED for the eventuality however that doesnt mean it is the correct answer in all situations. Many times an attacker can simply be brought to the ground and his attack stopped however do not assume that A) we dont see that as an option and B) that it is the only option.

Sometimes it simply is NOT an option.

Example: (since were doing so much assumption here) Assume for a moment that your in a restarant bathroom in a seedier part of town, Your dressed kind of nice and you have a small child with you. Maybe you were passing through and just wanted a quick bite, maybe the kid really needed to go to the bathroom... whatever the reason your there, your both in a small enclosed space. Now let us assume further that 3 rather rough looking individuals follow you into the bath room and pull out knives, maybe a pistol or two. Now further let us assume that these individuals have told you that they want your wallet, the keys to your car, and your watch and wedding ring and just to make sure that they get what they ask for, they say that they are going to take the small child with them and will let him go as soon as they think they have got away (complex situation? Yup. Couldnt happen? Happened to a very distant realtive of mine.) Now what do you do? You can say, Well "I would give them everything" but dont forget they want to take the child. You could say "I would disarm them".. well there are 3 of them and well armed and you have to think about the Child as well. You can barter with them but remember where you are... Will you be safe trying to find help without so much as an ID in a part of town that you not only dont know, but stick out like a sore thumb in? Will the child?

The only way you can "win" this confrontation is to take out these 3 individuals. Must you kill these individuals? absolutly not. If you can render them all uncouncious, if you can level them them and make it so that ALL 3 cannot continue the fight, AND protect the child you have an obligation to do so. However it may happen that you must use lethal force on at least one of these individuals and not being PREPARED to do just that may end up with your car being stolen, your wallet taken, the child being kidnapped, and you floating in a puddle of your own blood...

Its not "kill or be killed" it is "respond to the situation with the required force"


J Robbins

Kimpatsu
31st October 2001, 02:42
In answer to Sgathak, my priority is to ensure I'm never in such a situation. What happened to zanshin? These three individuals must have been waiting somewhere. Why didn't you detect them?
To Charles Hackney, I offer this quotation from DaiNippon99:
what is worse? killing an agressor, or losing a loved one?
That's the logical fallacy right there. I apologise for using the sweeping denunciation, "You're all guilty..." in my earlier post, because that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I should have written, "Some of you are guilty..." I still stand by my assertion that killing is wrong, though.
To Steven Malanosk: Yes, Kaiso did lead an interesting life. It was his horror at what he witnessed that led him to incorporate Kongo Zen into SK teachings. "Fusatsu katsujin" ("Thou shall not kill") is still one of the six tenets of SK.
I'm glad to see this thread has generated so much interest; it's clearly an issue that has been considered by many of the MA practitioners out there.
Now I'm off to beat some people over the head until they agree with me that violence is wrong. :smash:
Best to all,

Sgathak
31st October 2001, 03:52
Heres the problem with the Zanshin argument... You dont always get to choose your circumstance. While yes its always preferable to pick the safest course, sometimes the course chooses you. Further, a reliance on Zanshin is to my mind, a poor choice. Its a reliance on a tool and further more, a reliance on a perceptionary tool. While yes a study and application of Zanshin (by any name) should be a part of all martial traditions it should never be relied upon solely. As I said, sometimes circumstance places itself upon you. And the only course of action you have is to "deal with it".

Ruairi Quinn
31st October 2001, 17:59
Don mentioned the book 'On Killing', which I am reading at the moment.

Even in the introduction the argument is presented that the number of soldiers in WW2 who were actually able to kill the enemy face-to-face when it came down to it was very very low. As I understand it, the rest of the book explores, among other things, the pavlovian-type conditioning which was then implemented in the training of soldiers in war afterwards to allow them to kill more easily.

These WW2 soldiers presumably believed beforehand that they could indeed kill the enemy (otherwise why would they join up?), and apparently when it came to the crunch, they in fact could not.

Judging by the poll, a massive majority of E-budo members think they could kill, but I would have to wonder how many of them would act just like the WW2 soldiers, and find themselves unable to take their opponent's life when the chips were down.

---------

I think that most people don't divide cleanly into categories of 'can' or 'can't', however. Once at a self-defence seminar the instructor commented that he had once had a female attendee who said that under no circumstances could she gouge out another human being's eye, not even if her own safety was at stake. However, the instructor constructed a scenario where it was the safety of her young niece that was at stake, and the woman was forced to agree that yes, she actually could attack an agressor's eyes if it was the only thing that would stop him.

Based on this I would argue that different people in different situations will have varying thresholds and resistance to the idea of killing, but for everyone there will be something they hold dear enough to kill for. In my case, it might be the safety of familly or friends, for another person it might be only familly, not friends, etc.

Don Cunningham
31st October 2001, 21:24
Ruairi,

You seem to have understood the gist of the book just from the introduction. The author's presentation and research is really great. One thing you might note is when he discusses how soldiers, who have intellectualized the idea of killing enemies and consciously accept the concept, still apparently fired over the heads of troops as a subconscious reluctance to take another's life. I image the woman student you cited would still be unable to kill or maim despite the intellectualization of a scenario such as the instructor presented. Even though she has accepted the necessity to kill or maim, her subconscious is unlikely prepared to support it.

Your comment about how few forum members really have the will despite all the empty rhetoric is another good example of this. I agree 100 percent. I doubt that most of those who post such macho bravado would really be able to overcome their inherent reluctance in real time.

Another thing the book's author mentions is how the same inherent reluctance to kill another of the same species seems to be reduced with experience, that is, once someone kills, it becomes easier to do another. I've seen this many times during my reporter coverage of murderers. I recall how they often claimed that once they killed the first person, it was a simple matter to wipe out the other members of the family, etc.

Keith Mullin
1st November 2001, 04:10
It is my sincerest hope that I never have to "test my metal" in this way. As an Aikidoist I was tought from the beggining that the best budo is to simply get out of the way, avoid the confrontation. If that is not possible, to deal with it in a manner that causes the least harm to either party. Minimal amount of force required to difuse the situation. If that does not work and the issue is forced and there was absolutely no other way to solve the situation, I honestly dont know if I would be able to take another persons life. To protect those things I hold dear to me (friends and family) I would hope that I would have the ability to do what was neccessary. Not that I would enjoy killing, quite the opposite. I do not do Aikido to learn how to kill, I do Aikido to learn how to protect myself and those around me, including any would be agressors. Some of you may think that is a "bogus" or "false" conceptoin of the MA, but that is what it is to me.

Kimpatsu
1st November 2001, 06:29
This is turning into one lengthy debate :)
Sgathak: I'm not recommending zanshin alone, but sen no sen has to apply sometimes. Zanshin is just like any other technique in your arsenal, and should be used appropriately. Killing, however, is not a technique, it's OTT for self-defence.
Ruari:

the woman was forced to agree that yes, she actually could attack an agressor's eyes if it was the only thing that would stop him.
There's the logical fallacy again; gouging out the eyes is not the only way to stop an agressor. A simple poke will do as well; you don't have to leave someone blinded to protect yourself.
I'm off to spontaneously combust, now :redhot:
Best,

Ruairi Quinn
1st November 2001, 15:13
Originally posted by Kimpatsu


There's the logical fallacy again; gouging out the eyes is not the only way to stop an agressor. A simple poke will do as well; you don't have to leave someone blinded to protect yourself.
I'm off to spontaneously combust, now :redhot:
Best,

Hi Tony-

We don't disagree that much, because I totally second the idea that killing or maiming someone should be about the very last thing you would want to employ in self defence.

However, the idea that it is *never* necessary to stop an aggressor I would disagree with.

I can conceive of situations where it might be the only way to be sure that a threat to your life or that of your familly was ended. As a rule of thumb, I believe that if someone tried to kill me, then I would feel justified in responding in kind.

(Incidentally, it's fine detail, but I suspect that if someone is pumped up, drunk or on drugs then just a 'poke' to the eyes will *not* stop them- they'd probably carry on coming at you as long as they could see you and move after you. Hence the need to either run like hell or mount an attack that destroys their physical capacity to cause you harm i.e injure their knees etc.)

The really interesting thing about this thread to me is that the vast majority of people, as Don says, can intellectually prepare themselves for the idea of needing to kill and sometimes even romanticise it, but could they do it? My answer to the poll would have been 'I don't know'- because until I'm in that situation, I have no idea how I would behave.

Don's point about the unconscious preventing actions that the person has rationally decided on seems very important as well.

HanashiBugeisha
3rd November 2001, 02:53
I took the poll and said "Yes". I must agree 100% that there would no doubt be emotions (Anger, guilt, etc.) that I may very well need help dealing with after taking another life. I hope that I never have to find out how to deal with such things.

However I must respectfully disagree that I am taking away someone's chances to reform themselves. I would like to think that if it were a choice between my wife's life, my daughter's life, my life OR someone that was trying do kill any one of us, that person isn't going to get a chance to reform while they throw dirt on top of our graves. No bravado here....just a deep and abiding love for family and for life.

I dislike the thought of having to take another human life....It's nearly the most awful thing I can imagine....next to someone doing the same to my family. I train in Iaido and Kenjtutsu. I do it not only for personal growth, but to some extent I do it to keep the knowledge alive....and I have always been fascinated with the Japanese culture. I have no romantic thoughts that I am a samurai or some all powerful warrior. I do think it does help prepare me in some way for a violent confrontation....though I would never take a sword to a gunfight as it were.

When I first began my training, there was a quadruple murder here where I live. The "home entry" occurred at 11:30 PM in a "nice" neighborhood. There were 5 people asleep in the house. Two couples (2 men and 2 women) and another man. Two men broke into the house and over the next several hours, some awful things took place. One man had a knife and the other a gun. One man took each victim, one at a time, and made them drive to the ATM to withdraw money, while the other man kept the remaining four at the house. These men forced the victims to do sex acts with each other and on themselves. The stripped the five people and loaded them into one of the victim's pickup trucks. They told them they were going to take them to the country and leave them there so they could get away. They said they would not kill them. When they arrived on the outskirts of town, they walked them in the snow, completely naked, to a ditch on the side of the road. They made them kneel in the snow, and one by one they shot them execution style in the back of the head. After that, the two men got in the truck and ran the five people over to make sure they were dead.

One of the women survived the gunshot as it ricocheted off of her skull. When she saw them get in the truck she burrowed herself into the snow as she thought they were going to run her over. She "played" dead and she lived to testify against the two animals that did this to her fiancé and friends.

Why am I mentioning this story you may ask? I mention it because I found it to be very sad that not one of the victims ever did anything to save themselves. I know there was a lot of head games going on....being stripped naked...being assaulted....being demeaned....being promised that they wouldn't be killed. I would never presume to put myself in their positions and judge them hindsight. But after this crime...and incidents on Sept. 11 when the hijackers said the passengers would not be harmed and that they were just diverting the planes....well....it's a sick world out there. I hope that if faced with any life or death situation that I would have the presence of mind to make a split second decision to save my life or the life of those I care about. That is why I voted "YES" in the poll...and why I hope I never have to find out if I am right.

That's my two cents....

Regards,

Matthew

Kimpatsu
3rd November 2001, 07:54
Dear Matthew,

I would like to think that if it were a choice between my wife's life, my daughter's life, my life OR someone that was trying do kill any one of us, that person isn't going to get a chance to reform while they throw dirt on top of our graves. No bravado here....just a deep and abiding love for family and for life.
Once again, the logical fallacy. Killing is not the only way to stay safe.
Best,

HanashiBugeisha
3rd November 2001, 14:34
Dear Tony,

Please let me elaborate as I did not do so in my first post. I do not want to kill anyone if I do not have to. If I had the options of:

1. Leaving the situation
2. Subduing/restraining/incapacitating the assailant

I would choose either of those in a heartbeat rather than take someone's life. I was merely stating that in a life and death situation if there were NO other recourse save taking a person's life or have mine or my loved one's taken, than my personal choice is very clear.

Respectfully,

Matthew

Ruairi Quinn
3rd November 2001, 19:51
Hi Tony-

My logic classes were quite a while ago, but :
I don't believe the idea that taking your opponent's life *could* conceivably be the only way to preserve your own is in any way at all a logical fallacy. (As I said in my post above). If you think it is, please explain.

Kimpatsu
4th November 2001, 00:17
Hi, Folks.
I feel like the little Dutch boy plugging the dyke with his finger with this one.
To Matthew: Could you give me an example where killing was the only option? Why would incapacitation not work, but killing work?
To Ruari: The following is listed from the Index of Logical Fallacies, at http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Definition:

A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator.
Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Examples:
Either you're for me or against me.
America: love it or leave it.
Either support Meech Lake or Quebec will separate.
Every person is either wholly good or wholly evil.

In other words, the moment you introduce the operand, you've committed a logical fallacy.
HTH,

Sgathak
4th November 2001, 01:03
Ok Tony... lets quit argueing semantics... which is what this is. Everyone trying to get around everyone elses word play. Logical fallacy or not I dont see any Vulcans here so making an argument based solely on what is or is not correct logical word useage is just annoying for all of us, including you "little dutch boy".

The original question is CAN you kill? not will you, not would you like to, not is it logical... Can you!

Lets ass-ume for a second that you DID kill someone... could you live with it? could you do it? are you physically and emotionally able to do it?

if not the answer is "no" and you move on. If you could, then the answer is "yes", and you move on... if the answer is "i dont know" then you dont know if your capable of doing it and you move on... argueing wether or not its logical doesnt really enter the equation... Unless you have pointy ears, or have some sort of reason to illogically keep this conversation going? An egotistical need to feel superior to your more barbaric peers perhaps?

Careful! think it over before you answer...:D


J Robbins

Kimpatsu
4th November 2001, 01:13
Sgathak,
Logic is the only tool we have for framing arguments. I already know I'm in the minority on this issue, because of the poll at the top; so far, only two other people have agreed with me. If I felt morally superior, I would say so. I'm continuing to post in answer to questions, and hypotheses, directed at me (people put my name in the tag line). People's responses to the original question have been framed as "kill or be killed," and all I'm attempting to do is point out that logically -there's that word again- the black and white approach is a fallacy. Can you give me an example where you couldn't incapacitate an opponent, that the only way to stop them was to kill them? I'd be interested to know.
TIA,

HanashiBugeisha
4th November 2001, 01:40
Tony,

I suppose I could come up with scenarios where I think deadly force would be needed. However I do feel that no matter what I say regarding this matter, you will have a response that negates my point and supports your own. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I am saying that is the nature of the beast. It's not a black and white world. I find most things to be in a grey area.

The original question is "Can you kill?" The question did not ask for a moral or logical statement, but many of us have felt the need to include scenarios or reasons for our responses, myself included.

What you are saying Tony, if I understand correctly, is that there is never a need for deadly force. However, just because deadly force is used, it does not mean the person whom it is directed at always dies. What I am saying is that in the thick of things, the struggle for life against someone bent on doing me or my family harm, I will pull no punches. If I can get away safely without a physical confrontation, then you can bet your sweet bippy that I am gone. However if I have to fight for my life I am not going to diferentiate from lightly jabbing the eyes and really gouging. I am the one that wants to walk away from the confrontation, and I am not really too concerned for someone that would deprive me of my life or do me bodily harm. If someone tried to attack me and I gained the upper hand and was choking them out, I would surely stop once they were incapacitated. I am not an animal that wants to take another's life.

I feel that if I did take the life of an attacker in the struggle for my survival, then so be it. It would be awful, but that is how it goes. I am fully cognizant that is where you and I differ in our opinions, and that is something I can live with.

If I may, allow me to pose a question to you. I am curious as to your opinion. Do you feel there is ever a time that deadly force is necessary? Do you think that law enforcement ever has the right to take human life? There have been hostage situations where innocents were about to die and the police have had to use precise, lethal force. Do you feel there are alternatives endings to these scenarios? Ok, technically that was a few more than one question. I am just really curious how you would answer these questions.

Again, I feel we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. But it is certainly enlightening to hear dissenting views and the reasons behind them.

Respectfully,

Matthew Ash

Sgathak
4th November 2001, 01:48
Logic isnt the only frame for arguement. Emotion is at least one other example. As is refrence to events, past and present.

Here is one example... a person high on PCP. You can break his fingers, throw him through a wall, beat him with a crow bar, he will continue to come after you!

Well you can say "why not just knock him out?" well... because it takes virtually lethal force to slow down someone on PCP anyway, to knock someone out would require an INCREDABLE amount of force, power, and skill. a combination few have, let alone your average joe.

A friend of mine was on a SWAT team in the Detroit Area about a decade ago, he was on a call out where a guy had locked himself into some small room with a hostage... Well, the guy decided to smoke some laced pot while he was waiting. Supposedly to calm his nerves or something. But the pot had PCP in it... The guy freaked and tried to run... He punched his way through a cinder block wall, ran out into traffic, got hit by a car, stood up and kept running... He got cornered and the officers had to shoot him for their own safety. It took 9 rounds from a .223 rifle to bring him to the ground. After a Shotgun bean bag round and three hits from a 9mm didnt stop him

On autopsy he had broken every bone in his arms from his fingers to his elbows into peices so small had he lived he would have never been able to use his hands again. His hip was broken in 2 places from the car, and had absorbed over a dozen rounds of ammunition to his main body mass before he succumbed to his wounds.

If you were a cop having to deal with that... tell me, could you have handled him with an "incapacitation"?


J Robbins

Kyukage
4th November 2001, 01:50
Well, this certainly got heated ...

joe yang
4th November 2001, 08:53
Mr. Ash seems to have gotten it right. It isn't do you want to kill, or do you need to kill, but can you kill? Which is to say are you prepared to kill?

Of the many scenarios we might create, we could surely work up a few where lethal force application was the only survival option. I'm sure I could.

I know as a martial artist, I've been trained in killing techniques. The question is still can I kill? I still don't know.

Kimpatsu
5th November 2001, 00:58
Hello, again, everybody.
This debate has certainly turned passionate. To maintain the Vulcan analogy, is everyone in the throes of ponfar?
Seriously, though, Sgathak: Your appeal to emotion is another logical fallacy. No matter how passionately you may believe something to be right, you must offer evidence of your position. An argument can only be determined on its merits, not your "gut feeling."
The point about the SWAT team and the PCP guy is an interesting one; Not having lived in America, I'm out of touch with American sensibilities on the subject (although I note that British police shot dead a man armed with a shotgun who had taken his ex-girlfriend hostage only last week). The thing is, we're not trained professional SWAT team members, and it is not our job to rescue hostages. MA at best handles a small level of violence; anything grander is already beyond our purvue.
If faced with a PCP-smoking maniac, I understand the reservations expressed by everyone who's posted here to oppose me. In an ideal world, I'd resort to juho, as even someone who feels no pain is subject to the laws of physics; his balance can be broken, and he can be restrained in the same way. Whether my technique is good enough to rely entirely on juho in such a stressful situation is another matter, though. However, that is why we train.
On the issue of why I keep harping on about the ethics, I wasn't the one who opened the door. Posters who have voted "Yes" in the poll haven't left it there; they've gone on to justify their response, mostly with the logical fallacy: "I'd kill if it was the only way..." As I've repeatedly said, it's not the only way. That's why I keep bringing this up. Logic as the only basis for debate is not negotiable; try emoting in a courtroom in place of rational argument, and you'll see what I mean. To answer "Yes" or "No" is not enough; you must justify your answers.
I now await the deluge of rebuttals, but I must say it's thought-provoking and stimulating.
BTW, have any poll respondants been women? I'm curious to know.
Live long and prosper :p

Sgathak
5th November 2001, 02:45
Ok.. its a logical fallacy... I can deal with having emotions. If you cant accept the reality that emotion is part of life and the making of choices. Well.. thats not on me.

This is just a game of ring around the rosies and quite frankly Im tired of going over the same damn thing. Tired of argueing semantics. You dont know until you do it. Some of us have. The rest just quible.


J (the illogical emotional neanderthal) Robbins

Kyukage
5th November 2001, 02:48
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
To maintain the Vulcan analogy, is everyone in the throes of ponfar?

<< deletia >>

Live long and prosper


... oh wow ... I mean ... I like Star Trek, but ... well ... wow

Kimpatsu
5th November 2001, 03:11
Yes, Kyukage,
Star Trek. I'm a fan.
:idea:

Kimpatsu
5th November 2001, 03:13
It's not semantics, Sgathak, it's logic.
There's a difference.
I have to go beam back to Vulcan, now... :p

Soulend
6th November 2001, 12:54
I believe, in answer to the original question, that I could. And furthermore, if the assailant was some thug attempting to kill me or my family, I doubt that I would even feel much guilt about it.

Also, vermin have a nasty habit of coming back and suing you if you only injure them, even if you were legally justified in killing them in the first place.

The PCP situation brings to mind a book I read once-a tome whose purpose was to discover the motivation and psychological impetus and effects of violence. I think it was called 'The Anatomy of Violence'. In it was described a fellow high on PCP who broke his handcuffs (and both wrists-but it didn't faze him in the slightest), and began single-handedly beating the crap out of a whole group of police officers. Mace didn't work, belaboring his skull with PR-24's didn't work, and the 19 9mm rounds he absorbed while kicking their collective butts didn't work either. It was a 12ga. slug to his head which finally stopped him. If you can 'restrain' such a guy as this, you're a better man than I! I'll stick with the Mossberg.:cool:

Kimpatsu
6th November 2001, 14:57
Dear Soulend,
That PCP story is amazing. I'll look into the effects of PCP some more. Intriguing, to say the least.
Is the US legal system that messed up that assailants sue their intended victims for defending themselves?
Best on board the ship.
:wave:

Mike Collins
10th November 2001, 04:54
The rhetoric aside, nobody can possibly know whether or not they could or would kill unless and until they've done it.

I sincerely hope nobody here ever needs to find out. And those that already have (assuming it was justified and right), I hope you can get some sleep in peace.

Me, I have no idea, and I pray it never comes up. And if it does, I hope I do the thing my soul can live with, whatever that may be.

It's one thing to be a tough guy, but life and death is some serious stuff, and it isn't for the weak minded. Or maybe that's exactly who it's for.

spartanmachine
12th November 2001, 05:48
The PCP story is amazing but the fact of the matter is that you don't need a drug induced high to bring about such a tough opponent. Adrenaline highs are capable of close to the same thing. There was a guy who took 4 shots to the torso from a cop then wrestled the gun from him and shot him in the head only to die from blood loss minutes later. I've even heard of drunks who were capable of taking tremendous beatings before being subdued. The truth is that the sociopaths out there are capable of extreme violence and killing, think about that next time you train. Are you realistically capable of handling this type of violence and killing your attacker? I think it helps if you realise and visualise what these people are capable of, now imagine that being perpetrated on your friends and family. Now tell me if you would have any problems killing. Conditioning yourself to kill if and when you would ever have to is actually very simple and believe it or not easier than you think. As far of the guilt that you may later feel, I think it has alot to do on how justified you feel that kill is. If you would later feel guilty , just think of how better off you are than if you would be dead, unless of course it wasn't a just kill. Some might think that this is easier said than done, and you know what, they're right but that still doesn't change what has to be done. Think about this deeply before you train but more importantly , FEEL it!

It is better to be sentenced by 12 than buried under 6.

Kimpatsu
12th November 2001, 07:40
Dear SpartanMachine,
Here we go again. People are still arguing as if the choice is a straightforward toss-up between killing or being killed. Surely there's another way, even for people high on PCP? (I must admit, I'm still checking into that one.)
If killing really is that easy for you, I think you might require counselling.
Best,

Sgathak
12th November 2001, 08:45
What is PCP?
PCP (phencyclidine) is most often called "angel dust." It was first developed as an anesthetic in the 1950s. However, it was taken off the market for human use because it sometimes caused hallucinations.

PCP is available in a number of forms. It can be a pure, white crystal-like powder, or a tablet or capsule. It can be swallowed, smoked, sniffed, or injected. PCP is sometimes sprinkled on marijuana or parsley and smoked.

Although PCP is illegal, it is easily manufactured. It is often sold as mescaline, THC, or other drugs. Sometimes it may not even be PCP, but a lethal by-product of the drug. Users can never be sure what they are buying since it is manufactured illegally.

What are the physical effects of PCP?
Effects depend on how much is taken, the way it is used, and the individual. Effects include increased heart rate and blood pressure, flushing, sweating, dizziness, and numbness. When large doses are taken, effects include drowsiness, convulsions, and coma. Taking large amounts of PCP can also cause death from repeated convulsions, heart and lung failure, or ruptured blood vessels in the brain.

Why is PCP dangerous?
PCP can produce violent or bizarre behavior in people who are not normally that way. This behavior can lead to death from drownings, burns, falls (sometimes from high places), and automobile accidents. Regular PCP use affects memory, perception, concentration, and judgment. Users may show signs of paranoia, fearfulness, and anxiety. During these times, some users may become aggressive while others may withdraw and have difficulty communicating. A temporary mental disturbance, or a disturbance of the user's thought processes (a PCP psychosis) may last for days or weeks. Long-term PCP users report memory and speech difficulties, as well as hearing voices or sounds which do not exist. The effects of PCP can be very unpredictable. Central Nervous System effects can include euphoria, loss of inhibitions, anxiety, disorientation, restlessness, drowsiness, or disorganized thinking. There can also be distorted time, space, and body sensations, feelings of weightlessness, paranoia, and the feeling of being disassociated with the environment. The user can experience audial and visual hallucinations as with LSD. In the body, PCP raises the heart rate and blood pressure. It can also cause excess salivation, sweating, numbness, staggering, slurred speech, fever, and muscle rigidity.

In toxic doses, the user can become hostile and violent, acting in a bizarre or psychotic manner. They may attempt to assault other people, or to harm themselves through self-mutilation or suicide. The person may experience amnesia and become catatonic. In high doses, there may be coma, convusions, and death. Persons who've received toxic doses must often be restrained and receive tranquilizers to calm them down.

Many users report profound after-effects ranging from depression, disassociative states, confusion, paranoia, and feelings of insanity. By some reports, these symptoms can continue for years after the initial experience.

Users have more sharply contrasting responses to PCP than to other drugs of abuse. It has profound effects on thinking, time perception, sense of reality, and mood; dreamlike states, euphoric or depressed moods, and bizarre perceptual experiences are reported. Negative aspects of PCP ingestion include disorientation, confusion, anxiety, irritability, paranoid states, and dangerously violent behavior. Hostility and belligerence can remain long after the drug is no longer measurable in the blood. Chronic users may also experience depression or a schizophreniclike state that can last months after discontinuation.

Though rare, PCP use can lead to violent episodes. Some stemming simply from the general unpredictable reactions PCP can cause in its users, to extremely aggressive behavior often caused from "bad trips". These episodes can last from several minutes to several days and can range from random physical attacks on stationary objects such as throwing glass or punching walls, to extended violent assaults on persons and property which can often leave the user irrepairably broken (pulverized bones, to brute force amputations have been recorded) or even dead, as is occasionally seen by urban police officers who often must fire their weapons as many as 15 or 20 times to stop assailents who are using phencyclidine.

How do PCP users feel?
Users find it difficult to describe and predict the effects of the drug. For some users, PCP in small amounts acts as a stimulant, speeding up body functions. For many users, PCP changes how users see their own bodies and things around them. Speech, muscle coordination, and vision are affected; senses of touch and pain are dulled; and body movements are slowed. Time seems to "space out."

Kimpatsu
12th November 2001, 09:40
Sgathak,
That's a good post, my friend. Very informative. Thanks very much. It made an interesting read. Now, where did I leave my PCP for randori...? :p

spartanmachine
12th November 2001, 19:04
If killing really is that easy for you, I think you might require counselling.

LOL, thanks. But I'm not a sociopath, I may just have to outdo one if I am forced too.
Seriously though I don't understand your point though. Are you honestly telling me that if someone would threaten the life of someone you cared about you would have trouble killing to save a loved ones life?


Some might think that this is easier said than done, and you know what, they're right but that still doesn't change what has to be done.

This isn't something that is that "easy" to do for me or anybody like you said , but I believe that it is critical that you believe it MUST be done in order to do it.
Now if you are arguing that is it right to kill another in self defense well then you have to go work this one out on your own because I am firmly convinced it is, and I do not believe that I would require counselling because of it, just the opposite. But I think it's something that you have to clarify and simplify within yourself or you will never be able to carry out.
I also firmly believe that ALL people can be killers rightly or wrongly if they don't take control of what things mean to them for themselves, which is what must be done concerning killing for self defense or otherwise.

Kimpatsu
12th November 2001, 22:27
Dear SpartanMachine,

Are you honestly telling me that if someone would threaten the life of someone you cared about you would have trouble killing to save a loved ones life?
Here we go with the bifurcation fallacy again. Why is killing the only way to protect a loved one's life? What's wrong with non-lethal force?

Keith Mullin
12th November 2001, 22:50
Its not that they/we are saying that they are the only two options open to us most of the time, but that in some situations there will only be two choices. To put it into a metaphore, life is a multiple choice test most of the time, but there is such a thing as true and false. You cant argue with someone that is irrational or strung out on drugs, and you cant fight with someone that could wrestle with kodiak bear and win. Well I supose you could, but it would do you no good.

For a hypothetical example. Say your a police officer and you come home from your shift to find a drugged up sociopath in your house with a gun to your spouces or childs head. Now lets say the deranged lunatic starts demanding something you cant provide or just damanding something non sensical and starts counting down from five for you to produce the object of his demands. You have five seconds to make a decision about what to do. There is fifteen feet, a coffee table, and a couch between you and him. You have a gun that you know how to use, and he has a gun to your families head. You dont know if he will actualy pull the trigger. Do you want to risk it and let him count down while you try to reason with him? If you can think of a way out of this situation where nobody ends up dead or injured through lethal intent Im all ears.

spartanmachine
12th November 2001, 23:46
Kimpatsu, I don't know why you're jumping off the topic here . There is no bifurcation fallacy.We are not talking about a situation where you can remove yourself by escaping or controling an individual or de-escalating the situation. We are talking about life and death situations where you cannot control the situation and your life and/or the lives of others are in immediate danger of ending.
Now the question was simply if necessary Can you kill ? And will you feel guilt afterwards? And I simply gave what I feel is the appropriate answer to this situation, YOU SURVIVE , Period !!! There is no moral dilema here. If there is a moral dilema it's either because lethal force is not necessary( no bifurcation here) or you haven't prepared to defend yourself and survive. I'm telling everyone here to prepare themselves for it or they definetely won't be able to do it, there are no real guarantees that they will be able to do it anyways but at least they have a chance.
If the question is a moral one which is seems to me that for you it is ( you are unclear about the ethics involved and your own morality and the meaning behind that) then you need to work on yourself possibly through counselling as you said but I think you should be intelligent enough and driven enough to work things like this out for yourself. And if you aren't , well then the problem is with you and no one can change that , I am not so arrogant and ignorant to even try. Good luck.

Kimpatsu
13th November 2001, 07:04
Dear Keith:
Since cops in North America carry guns, I don't suppose I could ever become one. To attempt to answer your question hypothetically, though: Can I not shoot to wound, rather than kill? Why would the protection of my family entail the murder of the madman?
SpartanMachine: You gave me an either-or situation. That is a bifurcation fallacy, because there is always more than just two choices. Besides, if I'm doing my killing with a gun, what's that got to do with MA? I thought the intention behind this thread was whether you were prepared to kill with your bare hands, which would entail at most an attacker with a knife (anything more, such as a gun, and you're already dead).
Yes, to me, killing is an ethical question, but it's also one explicated in SK with fusatsu katsujin (often translated as "thou shalt not kill"). I still can't find any moral justification for it, but then I live in the best of all possible worlds.
Till the next round,

Soulend
13th November 2001, 12:45
Mr. Kehoe, in reply to your much earlier post, yes, the justice system in the U.S. is that screwed up. I wish I could quote you examples, as there are many, but I don't have them with me out here, and my internet connection is too horrendous to search the net.

I think I understand what you are saying, and please correct me if I'm wrong. If it is possible to use a potentially lethal technique, then it should be possible to a non-lethal one, or throttle back on the lethal technique to make it simply disabling. Thus, the threat is neutralized, and no one has died. Is that it in a nutshell?

If it is, I think you have a made a good and valid point, and one that I cannot offer a logical argument against. The lawsuits are a fact- but are a weak reason for killing someone. The occasionally super-human rage and strength of the PCP addict is fact, but it is admittedly unlikely.

I say if your skill and self control using non-lethal and submission techniques is such that you can neutralize your attacker, that's wonderful. My 'problem' is that the techniques I would resort to, the ones I would put my faith in, are potentially lethal strikes, since my background is in the striking arts of Wado-Kai karate and TKD. True, I could direct the blows to less-damaging areas of the body...the knees, for instance, but in a desparate situation I'm afraid that they might not work. So, I would rather go for targets that are more easily damaged, like the throat. Unfortunately there is a greater chance of fatal injury too.

In a situation where your life or the life of your family is in grave danger, what is important to me is neutralizing the threat by any means neccesary. To borrow from the Shinkage Ryu, "Satsujinken, Katsujinken". The sword that takes life, the sword that gives life. My twisted morality tells me that if by taking a life you save your own life or the life of a family member, AND the lives of his would-be future victims, then you're in Katsujinken territory. But if you can do all that and not kill the aggressor, my hat's off to you.

God, I'm long-winded.

Mike McLaren
13th December 2001, 03:09
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. If the situation went past the point where it could be defused and the attacker could not be subdued, if it were myself or him, then yes I could kill.

Mike McLaren

J. A. Crippen
14th December 2001, 08:31
I think perhaps that for the koryu, particularly those that predate the Tokugawa shogunate, one should be prepared to kill whether one ever will need to or not. That is part of their heritage. Not being a koryu practitioner (though I wish I was, sure) I can't say this for certain, but it makes sense to me.

For the budo, certainly that's one important thing that it should teach. Life is more important than winning. If I had to kill to save my own life, I would. If instead I could retain my life and only disable or maim my opponent, then I'd much rather do that instead.

Jerry Johnson
15th December 2001, 16:18
I find this (recycled) question to be a bit of an awkward fancy, and uncomfortable to say the least. And I
have never killed another human being, unintentional or intentionally yet. But the following is my opinion.

I find killing someone ( based on those who have, i.e. soldiers, those who are in car accidents, teenaged gang members, and those who are involved in hunting accidents). It is a serious issue that leaves deep psychological impressions for a life-time no matter how macho you think you are initially. From my experience, it changes people and it usually doesn't make a normal person jump for joy when it happens. Much less, anyone with a conscious. In most cases it devastates that person in some way.

We often romanticize killing way too much i.e. in movies etc. And in my opinion this is a pathetic perspective at a serious and life changing subject. In my opinion, it trivializes the subject and the experience. In today’s modern world, as a whole, we have left the samurai culture behind. We don't start training individuals as a society to kill at the age of 2. The world has moved away from that type of culture where a live sword in placed in kids' hands at 2, where the grooming begins. Which tells you something about what killing is in itself. It takes a lot of head twisting and head messing to get most people to kill regularly to say the least. And you got to start them young, right?

I think it is pretty clear many people, if faced in a life or death situation and not overwhelmed with fear when caught in a self-defense position, or being attacked by foreign invaders (if equipped with a fire arm) could, yes, pull the trigger. But, I would bet, it would be out of shear fear or anger. Also many people that are killed intentionally in a “peaceful” society I would bet on the following reasons, 1. Liquid courage, i.e. drugs and/or alcohol . 2.Emotional distress ( anger, fear, hatred) 3. Age and sex. And lastly, and the combination of the previous above.

I think most people can kill as noted above. But the real issue is when the smoke clears. Life isn't a movie.

Jerry Johnson
15th December 2001, 19:29
Now, I would like to address the perspective of "you don't have to kill in a life threating situation. "

Not to trivialize things but of course a solider in war does, and is the exceptions here, and I don't think the topic thread alluded to this situation.

What many of us call Martial arts is a hobby. A hobby we do for many reasons. It fulfills something with in us that may be fancy or fanfare, but clearly we are not trained professional soldiers or killers each time we walk out of the dojo.

It can be argued a martial artist today in the western may be a superman type of oxymoron. That is martial arts for most of us Clark Kents marital arts feeds our insecurities and or alter ego. Sure we change after time and learn skills and less of being Clark Kents when we first joined, but we still, for many of us, are feeling like more confident, rather then being able to kill. It also can be said for some I must agree, it is an outlet or vehicle for emotional turmoil i.e. the extreme is the Mike Tyson syndrome. Or a stress release from the daily grind. But, lets face it, 99.9 of us who go to the dojo are not there to kill or prepared to kill. Despite what we learn. We are there to learn an art, to fulfill a fancy, to help us in some way. Overall, to gives us assurance in some way or another about who we are. This isn't a bad thing. I think it is a healthy normal human thing. Therefore, I must argue dojo’s don’t teach you to “really” kill in the overall scope. Because if this was really true, that all involved intentions at a dojo are to kill, we wouldn't spend big $ over the many years of training and continue the personal sacrifice. We would be else where i.e. in the French Foreign Legion or other military group for example. Oh hell, for that matter in organized crime as a hit man. I don’t see any reason then, that is if your in such a group thinking your there to learn to kill.

I have a story that will support the idea that you don't have to kill to protect yourself. But yet the outcome conflict with that idea and present a new view.

A couple which are good friends of mine are highly paid professionals and make more money each in one year then I do in a life time. The couple spent most of their lives in school. Real book worms with high IQs people who collapse of exhaustion in a sprint up the stairs. People who I doubt ever got more then a paper cut. People who bruise when playing the children's game Rock, Scissors, and Paper. People who had never experience the physical active world, much less any violence. Until they moved in to their second house.

Long story, short. The couple experienced a burglary, where they where held at gun point in their home. The intruder surprised them as posing as a new salesmen from a company the couple was doing business with. The intruder gagged and tied with plastic bags ties on their heads. The couple was severely beaten, suffering skull fractures, broken bones, internal bleeding, etc. from being pistol whipped for hours. Then they were told [she]would be rapped and then both shot upon the intruders return from the upstairs bedroom. A this point [he] managed to free himself from the binding because of a broken bone. He freed his wife who was in and out of conscious due to blood loss. She was able to call 911. Then my friend, went up stairs and “sucker punched” the intruder from behind twice with the same arm. The intruder staggered, lost his balance dropping the gun to catch his balance from the blows. My friend picked up the gun off the floor and hit the intruder again in the face. The intruder ran down the stairs with my friend chasing him. The intruder then went throw a door pane window as my friend tackled the intruder at the bottom of the stairs. The intruder managed to get through the glass door pane and out on the front lawn. My friend followed. He also went through the broken glass door pane also receiving major gashes from the broken glass in the process. He confronted the intruder again on the lawn while the intruder was catching his breath. My friend hit him again with a closed fist to the nose braking the intruders nose. The intruder dropped to the ground in pain pleading for his life. My friend had left the gun behind. The intruder was then arrested by police shortly after that. The intruder was a harden criminal who previously served time for murder and burglary. He is serving a life sentence.

Not once did my friend point the gun to shoot the intruder. Nor did at any time intend to kill him despite the opportunity and situation. All that went through his untrained mind was to get the gun and get the guy out. Now because of this situation he owns a shot gun and rehearses with his wife the what to do's and the plan on the "what ifs" on a monthly basis. That was years ago. Now, my friend says his wife lives with fear, and he has resolved it by saying he says he looks at death differently. Now it is a choice if faced in a similar situation again. That ‘s he may not fight if it happened again. Something he would have never considered before he says.

spartanmachine
16th December 2001, 06:08
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry . I thought we went through all this before. Terribly sorry about your friends. But read some of the earlier posts by Tony and Myself.

PS. Your writing is a little hard to follow, try not to write as things come to you and think it out first.

Kosta Moutzouris

Jerry Johnson
17th December 2001, 02:33
Dear Sir,
For your convenience:
Tabla La Rasa.
Your dictated by your environment.
Behavior is learned.
Don't Assume.
Action speaks louder then words.
Experience is your best teacher.
Those who say they do, usually don't.
An option not considered is one's own death in the face of violence. Point being a humble notion of surrender rather violence. See. Gandhi.

And yes, I didn't read the whole thread. And I apologize if you failed to notice the of ideas and their relationship presented. I tend not to write in binary code as this is what I apologize for. I also will not hit all the points I made. Just the one below.

Here is an overview of the triangulation of action I was getting at in my posts. The first leg are those who choose violence by saying they will kill. This is usually ego based. The second leg are those who say they would not kill, but rather find an alternatives to killing i.e. injury. Which in it's self is ego based and connected to the intent of killing. To illustrate this idea, Ellis Amdur pointed out in a earlier thread concerning Aikido, via a quote and I paraphrase, Aikido is really about violence, and not peace. Which illustrates a mind set that if you can injure, you have the mind set to kill. In my view, it is the same action but differentiated by the degree of action. The third leg, is those who surrender to violence, don't kill or injure, and don't fear death. Which my story of my friends was a tangible model of this triangulation concept. In illustration, the husband didn't kill but injured, he didn't know how. The intruder's intent was to kill which he didn't succeed (which relates to the topic thread, he intended to kill but wasn't able). The wife who was not killed is living in constant fear and emotional turmoil, this has stopped her life. For him, He is caught in a complex web of emotions and questioning his self. Therefore, he rationalizes death as a humble option. Bottom line is you have to live with yourself and it could be very difficult regardless if you injure or kill. All three people live on the triangle I described. There is the intruder, the wife and the husband which all are represented. Not to mention the memories both will live with the rest of their lives.

It has been studied and proven there is an emotional price to pay to kill or injure. Though in other cases doing injury to others doesn't carry as high a price as killing. For those who are in a killing culture i.e. my example of organized crime in my previous post then those who are not in a killing culture as mentioned in my previous post. What ever culture your in you can be haunted by guilt, depression, etc at some level and thus changing your life i.e. being more of killer or seeking out religion as in a previous thread in Budo no Kokoro here in Ebudo. These are facts which many people don't think about before opening their mouths and boasting they can kill. Or other, who are full of self-importance, like yourself, who profess to knowing it all, and there is not need to discuss it all has been already discussed. Either way there is a responsibility, which was well point out by another poster on this thread. Which I found very well thought out and intelligent.

To take a closer look at injuring instead of killing. If you don't kill you may wish you did. You may wonder if your attacker will seek see revenge etc. and thus you live in fear of when the next attack will be? Or that the next time you will be killed as your aggressor may conquer you with the greater intent to kill. In this case you may have to kill. Knowing clearly, the trauma one goes through after killing some one. For example, the trauma that cops go through after using deadly force. This should be a good enough example of what happens when a person kills another. If you injury you may suffer from emotional turmoil that is far beyond one's own coping abilities. I wouldn't say injury someone is a free-be. But it is dictated to injure rather then kill in many societies.

Now, let's look at death as related to the topic post, are you ready to die? This is something that is rarely discussed. Hence not a popular at the dojo as could you kill. For many it is a social taboo and an ego thing to surrender to the circumstance and die. I find it a more humbling concept and harder to do. For my friend death is now an option if he is in such a situation. To surrender. This idea my be odd to you. But the point is how many people consider death. We are imbedded with the notion to kill first for many. It seems to be a macho thing. All powerful to kill. To take a life is ultimate winning. But nothing is said about the consequences emotional of such an act. There is not talk about the responsibility of such a deed. American like other countries are numb to killing. So many people have fantasies about being a hero and killing. Yet, no one considers someone a hero for not killing, much less dyeing instead. I figure this to be so, because, we despite our religious culture and beliefs, feel that death in the worst thing, i.e. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

Most people missed the point in Star Wars when Obiwon was struck down by Darth. No one cheered in the audience. The hero was finished, it shock us - But any way, the audience wasn't thinking the hero had won and defeated evil in surrendering which was an unselfish act. Which wasn't that the point in the movie anyway that through death you are stronger. I ask you to reference Joseph Campbell on the subject of myths and heroes to get a better understanding of what I am saying.

My final point, is it is easy to say you can kill. It may be so if all you had to do is pull a trigger. But realistically I think most dojo's play into the fancy of being able to kill and or teaching to kill. It is misleading and limited in scope. And that is more dangerous and irresponsible in my opinion. I am not saying it is or isn't easy to kill. That is up to each individual to decide if they could or couldn't. If people where serious on killing, they wouldn't join a dojo. They would buy a gun and they do. But rarely do I hear of a person using martial arts technique to kill another. Sure it happens like in bar fights, but even then I doubt it is always intentional. IMHO, mostly martial art skills cause injuries more often then death. Point is most martial artists are not killers unlike the samurai from which they take. The samurai where a people who killed and it was part of the culture. Therefore, such a question as the topic question would never arise. But, is a recycled fancy though out so many dojo's I have visited.

The dojo's of today are not of those of yesteryear of the samurai. The dojo's of today are hobby dojo's where people can get away or release tension, or fill egos and fancies, or to dip into a different culture. But clearly, todays dojos are teaching people to kill. If today's dojos where teaching to kill the dojo and webpages etc, would be a whole different beast. I agree,
there is a responsibility and a price to killing and injuring someone vs. just talking about it. It is more pleasing to the ego to scream " I can kill" then it is to whisper in humility, "I can die."

Now Sir, go back and re-read the beginning of this post and my other posts again. It should make more sense the second time with this long winded spoon feeding.



Jerry
Jerry
Jerry

Rosi
17th December 2001, 15:25
Tony...

I'd agree entirely with the person who said that this is not really a logical question. Taking the position that one should never kill is not a logical point but an ethical one.

However...

Since misuse of mathematics is one of my pet hates, if we're going to insist on using logic, lets at least do it properly. As far as i can see, the discussion is not about whether killing someone is ever necessary. The statements you were initially objecting to were largely of the logical form:

IF I was in a situation where killing an aggressor was necessary to protect someone important to me, THEN I would be prepared to do so.

This does not logically imply that there exists such a situation, any more than the statement "IF it is raining THEN I will take the bus to work" implies that it is raining. There is no "bifurcation fallacy". While you may choose also to debate the logical statement "There exists at least one situation where killing an aggressor is necessary to protect someone important to me", be aware that this is another question entirely.

It would perhaps be wise to avoid accusing other people of making logical errors when you are on somewhat shaky ground yourself.

Incidentally - were you seriously suggesting that it might be a good idea to shoot to wound a person with a loaded gun at someone's head?!

R. Sexton

spartanmachine
17th December 2001, 18:47
Thank you Rosi. Your post was well written, logical and enlightening.

As for your post Jerry, well I guess If you can't beat'em with brains, Baffle'em with BS.

Rosi
17th December 2001, 21:06
There's the logical fallacy again; gouging out the eyes is not the only way to stop an agressor. A simple poke will do as well; you don't have to leave someone blinded to protect yourself.



Interestingly, i remember one incident in a grading where i had my fingers buried past the first knuckle in the eye sockets of someone who was strangling me, and the guy was still refusing to let go because he believed - quite rightly under the circumstances - that i wasn't prepared to actually gouge his eyes out.



R. Sexton

Steven Malanosk
17th December 2001, 21:35
The ammount of semantics and conjecture on this thread, are note worthy, to say the least.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I still maintain, that all the rationalization and mathematics / wishfull thinking in the world, is absolutly worthless, when it comes down to the one moment, when one is faced with such a decision, in which one has NO time to think, other than subconciously.

The question, if answered by anyone who has not already had the misfortune to test their weapons, should be:

I think so / I dont think so

I hope so / I hope not

Maybe / maybe not

perhaps / perhaps not

probably / probably not

If you have, than you know.

Everything else, is yet, and hopfully never, to be varified.

I personally have seen people freeze in the face of action, and others get caught up in the moment, and go with it.

You never know...................................................until.

Jerry Johnson
18th December 2001, 00:39
Originally posted by spartanmachine
Thank you Rosi. Your post was well written, logical and enlightening.

As for your post Jerry, well I guess If you can't beat'em with brains, Baffle'em with BS.

Your damn right...Spartie...it's a mindful when reality kicks you in the ass! That is, when something doesn't fit your little boxed world you throw it out. I see where your comming from. ;)



I for one know that like all human's we are capable of killing. But, until I am faced with that situation, what ever that situation may be or dictates, I will simply not know and will not pretend to know until it happens. It is a grave responsibly to bare when taking another person's life, able or not. I think therefore, any affirmations or spectulations of being able to do so, should not be spoken about lightly, or off the cuff.

Kimpatsu
18th December 2001, 01:06
Rosi,
The logical fallacy of bifurcation is very much present here. While I agree that the issue of killing itself is an ethical one rather than a logical one, the initial question was phrased to imply an either/or scenario: Kill or be killed. Since, with the possible exception of infantry warfare (an issue I don't want to get into here, because we're talking one-on-one, not mass armies), I still have not been presented with one convincing scenario whereby it really is kill-or-be-killed. There is always a third option, so presenting the options here as either/or is an illegal use of the "or" operand, and hence, a logical fallacy.
Now, can anyone make out what Jerry's trying to say?
Best,

Jerry Johnson
18th December 2001, 04:46
We often romanticize killing way too much i.e. in movies etc. And in my opinion this is a pathetic perspective at a serious and life changing subject.


It has been studied and proven there is an emotional price to pay to kill or injure. Though in other cases doing injury to others doesn't carry as high a price as killing.


For example, the trauma that cops go through after using deadly force. This should be a good enough example of what happens when a person kills another.


We despite our religious culture and beliefs, feel that death in the worst thing, i.e. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."

-reference Joseph Campbell on the subject of myths and heroes


I am not saying it is or isn't easy to kill. That is up to each individual to decide if they could or couldn't.


It is more pleasing to the ego to scream " I can kill" then it is to whisper in humility, "I can die."

The falsehood of the ego's immortality is present when it is only considering the affirmative to kill, and not considering the fact you also can die. This is regardless of the situation. Therefore, the majority of what has been discussed, overtly, in this thread is the assumption of the ego thinking it is immortal. That killing or even injuring a person is being successful. I am saying this isn't always the case and a more responsible discussion needs to take place. Therefore, let me quote Steven Malanosk

"The ammount of semantics and conjecture on this thread, are note worthy, to say the least.

At the risk of sounding redundant, I still maintain, that all the rationalization and mathematics / wishfull thinking in the world, is absolutly worthless, when it comes down to the one moment, when one is faced with such a decision, in which one has NO time to think, other than subconciously. "

Let me add this to his last sentence these words, reacting without thought or intention. i.e. "the gun just went off, I meant to scare him. not kill him."

So far, in this thread, It all has been academic and bravo on a serious subject that carries great implications, and consequences. Thus, as martial artists, we need to discuss it responsibly and not in the folly of clouds or egos.

If I have offend anyone this isn't my intent. But as a martial artist I don't want to mislead myself or anyone else on the main topic. I feel because I am a martial artist and not a solider, warrior, or has never killed anyone.I owe it to those who see me as a martial artist and myself to be respectful to such a subject as I have been taught (lethal techniques- applicable or not) not mislead people with my ego hanging out. I've been there and done that. Thus, I have learned via experience that no one likes a martial artist whose mouth overloads his ass when it come to topics like this one. Again I apologize to those who might take offence and see this post as being directly or indirectly insultive to them, it isn't. But rather a curve ball to get the discussion out of the clouds and on to the ground.

spartanmachine
18th December 2001, 07:47
It is more pleasing to the ego to scream " I can kill" then it is to whisper in humility, "I can die."

This is true, you do make a point Jerry , you just have to word it better.

As for Tony, I thought we went through this.
Ok here's a simple scenario,( and NO I'm not trying to show off my creative writing skills):D Two guys have guns pointed at each other , now for the guy defending himself , what is he to do, shoot the other in the knee cap. It's a kill or be killed situation. This can and does occur in real life Tony.

We should keep this topic going, we can eventually compile it into a book. We can call it Can You Kill? What do you guys think?

PS: Before writing more on this topic make sure you guys read all the posts, even though some are missing. It keeps us from repeating ourselves.

Kimpatsu
18th December 2001, 08:00
Can he not shoot the other guy in the kneecap? What's he doing with a gun anyway? I thought we were talking about unarmed combat. And if people keep repeating bifurcation or other logical fallacies, I'm going to keep pointing them out. Non illigitimi carborundum est. :D
This question is really like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whatever answer you give, you're damned. The question really being asked here (look, perspicacity! And you accuse me of being opaque! :D ) is, "Which would you rather do given the 'self-defence' justification: Maim or kill?" And that's a whole different issue.
Just another 2 yen from the man who brought you "Smash the system". :smash:

spartanmachine
18th December 2001, 08:12
What's he doing with a gun anyway?

I don't know Tony , why don't we ask him ?:rolleyes:

It's a situation that can occur in real life. The guy could be a cop or an armed citizen, the states only have a few million of them.
It could be a military situation, a private detective, a guy being attacked in his home , etc,... anyways it could happen. Either/Or situations happen all the time.

Kimpatsu
18th December 2001, 09:18
If somebody's joined the military, Kosta, I think the point is moot, because they've already resigned themselves to the need to kill. I don't know about the cop scenario, but what about non-lethal ammunition? Granted, we're now bordering on the realm of an ethical rather than a logical decision, but aren't the two deeply intertwined? Why can't the police have non-lethal weapons, anyway? And what's all this with weapons to begin with? A gun is designed to kill; MA is for handling a much smaller level of violence, and here are people talking flippantly about using it to kill. That's this discussion topic, surely? John Lindsey meant for the question to be "Would you use your training to kill?", not "Would you pick up a gun and shoot someone?"
Now, I've got to go ask the man with the gun what he thinks he's doing... :)

Rosi
18th December 2001, 18:09
Tony...

The crucial logical operator here is "if". This is a piece of logic that even some of the undergraduates i've taught have had problems with so i'll go through it again.

IF I were in a situation where it was necessary to kill an aggressor to protect someone important to me THEN I would be prepared to do so.

To use the terminology of the page you linked, what you are doing is committing an existential fallacy. To make the above statement is not to imply that there exists such a situation. I can make IF statements about all kinds of impossible and unlikely things: "IF i saw a flying pig THEN i would be very suprised" without suggesting, however, that i ever expect to meet a flying pig.

The "or" you are complaining about is inside the "if" construct - "IF i had to choose between x and y THEN i would choose x"; this can be a valid statement whether or not i'm ever likely to have to make this choice, or even whether it's logically possible that i will be forced to make this choice. An example would be "I would rather go without food for a week than eat caviar". It's practically impossible to think of a realistic situation in which someone would have to make this choice, but it can still be a true statement.

Even if your assertion is true and it is never necessary to kill someone to protect yourself or others (i will resist the temptation to debate the point as it is not part of my argument) this does not make the above IF / THEN statement any less valid. Admittedly, some people have not phrased their posts quite that carefully as they quite reasonably assumed that their meaning was obvious. (Anyone who thinks i have misinterpreted their position - please correct me!)

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a different format. It involves a presupposition, ie. something that must be true for the question to make sense. An IF statement or question does not.

I realise this has been a bit long and tedious and isn't really the point of this topic, so for the sake of everyone else on here, i'd appreciate it if you'd send any further discussion about the logical details of this argument to me personally.

As for what the questioner intended - i think we should take it at face value. It was, after all, an ethical question rather than a technical one.

Finally, you are, of course, free to take any ethical position you like and i respect you for doing so. However, i can't help feeling that you are trying to mask the consequences of this ethical position from yourself. Anyone who can honestly say that they would not kill under any circumstances has my wholehearted admiration (although i would not necessarily agree with them); but convincing yourself that there's no sacrifice because you would never have to make that difficult choice is, in my view, something of a cop out. It is true that it is extremely unlikely you'll ever have to make such a choice, but it is still an interesting question because it tells us something about ourselves. Star trek is full of ethical dilemmas like that where the characters are put in unlikely positions where they have to make very difficult choices, and in my opinion this is at least part of the show's appeal - it allows us to consider what we might do when faced with such a dilemma. Of course, there are always those who deny the problem exists: "well, why don't they just use the tachion beam phase transducers to modify the forward sensor array and divert the neutron field away from the romulan vessel?". I still think they're missing the point.

Rosi Sexton

spartanmachine
18th December 2001, 21:35
Great Post and welcome to this discussion group Rosi, we could use more like you.

Kimpatsu
19th December 2001, 00:24
Thanks for that, Rosi,
It was very educational. I like that you're a Star Trek fan, too.
I stand corrected on the logical/existential fallacy point.
On the killing, I'm a Shorinji Kenshi, and we're sworn not to kill. It really is that simple (and that difficult)!
Now I'm off to find a gun... :D

Rosi
19th December 2001, 12:44
Hi guys

Thanks for the kind words (i'm astonished by the open mindedness of people on here :) ). There is a lot to be said for having an ethical position on an issue that you are committed to whatever happens. On issues of conscience, it isn't always necessary to have a logical argument for your point of view. If that's what you believe, Tony, then there's nothing wrong with just stating it in those terms and i'm sure that most of the people on here will respect that even if they don't agree with you. If more people held those beliefs then the world would undoubtedly be a better place.

Rosi

Kimpatsu
20th December 2001, 08:24
Rosi,
Open-minded? US??!!! Nah... :D
Merry Xmas.
:santa:

red_fists
21st December 2001, 04:25
Late reply to the Poll.

Do I think that I could kill someone.

Yes, I think I do. Not because I am a kick ass fighter.
But simply because it is easier to deliver a deadly blow rather than being able to control it enough to simply disable the Opponnent.
IMO, we are talking the single most stressful experience a person can get into.


Could I live with it afterwards,hmmm ..., I will let you know after it happens.

Peace.:wave:

Ginzu Girl
21st December 2001, 06:06
Hi Fellas,
Sorry I'm joining the party so late but I found this thread particularly interesting, so I thought I would give it a shot.

I'm born and bred in the good ole' US of A. I'm intellectually assertive, physically strong and emotionally confident. I also believe that I am very consistent with all of my messaging. (In other words, when I say "no" with my mouth, my body language concurs.:nono: ) In addition to these "self defense" skills, I've developed pretty good radar for bad intentions/vibes. In other words, I do my best to prepare for an engagement that might come at any time.

Despite all of the above, I've been physically assaulted/threatened several times in my life (all unsuccessfully!:D )--to varying degrees of severity. This ranges from unwanted grabbing to an attempted rape from an casual acquaintance. Please note, I'm talking about face-to-face encounters. I'm not counting anonymous pinching or fondling in a crowd. (Boy, I'm starting to sound really overly sensitive about my personal space. I'm really not!)

So here's the interesting part. All of these unwanted encounters were stopped with one blow, or less. None of the assailants were permanently harmed. And I do believe that in at least one situation, I was truly in danger from an evil being. (Note how I've changed the threat from a "human" to an "it.")

So here goes. . .
Do I think I could kill someone? YES, THAT IS MY BELIEF. I'm convinced that this belief--my focused and determined intent--has kept me from being a victim.

(It's very important that I mention here that in NO WAY am I placing blame or responsibility on any victim of an assault. On the contrary, I've become a lot more sympathetic to how easily bad things can happen to any of us.)

OK, now, if it really came down to it. Could I walk the walk? God forbid I should ever have to meet that person who is just so sociopathic that he/she doesn't respond to my other tools. As Don and Steve point out (from experience, I'm inferring), it's pretty hard to take another human life. Unless of course you are truly sociopathic.

The reality is, I'm keenly aware of how difficult it is to disassociate yourself from the fact that it's another human being in front of you. I would only be able to follow-through with my intent if I could successfully disassociate myself. I want to, I intend to, but. . . .could I when the moment of truth comes?

The best I can do is keep reminding myself to continually be prepared to make the single most important decision of my life. If I remember these budo teachings properly, this is the mindset that matters. If you're "doing it right" then you shouldn't have to kill or be killed to prove it. The Catch-22 is, you have to be prepared to follow through because any indecision is "suki" and you're toast.

BTW, I'm not such a tough old biddy. I'm really a very nice person--at least my pets think so. ;)

koshoT
3rd January 2002, 04:30
I have considered this question before. And to be honest I don't know if i could take a life. In all fairness I am only a beginning Martial Artist so my opinon will probably change, but as of now I really don't think that I could. I have a real problem with hurting people in general and think it should be done with utmost consideration, and should never be taken lightly. Now death. That is something completely different. And that is why I actually like Martial Arts, becasue should the time come when you do need to defend yourself (if you are skilled enough to do so) you should be able to handle the threat without needing to take the person's life. That is the point of being good at peace-time martial arts is it not? To be capable to defend oneself without having to kill... because if you really wanted to defend yourself you could just buy a gun, but then again just owning a gun, and not knowing how to defend yourself otherwise narrows your options, and you may be forced to kill. I like to think that our great teachers had a purpose to their spiritaul teachings. Jesus, Budha, Muhammad, Moses, they all tell us that love is far better than killing. Jesus even let himself die, although he knew he was going to be betrayed. So I think this is more of a moral and ethical question than a possibility question. And I pray to God that I never encounter a situation that would "require" me to kill or be killed. I for one would try any other option. But then again, I have never been in that situation, and I pray I never will. A good Martial Artist should hopefully be able to do something in that situation before it came to that point. MA teaches preparation for everything and anything. So we should not be so much prepared to kill, but be prepared to escape and handle the situation before that option is forced upon us.
To quote J.R.R. Tolkein, "Many people live that deserve to die. And many die who deserve to live. Can you give them life? Do not be too quick to hand out death and judgement"

Thank you,
Tom Berkery

joe yang
3rd January 2002, 05:07
I have seen cold blooded, ruthless and unrepentant killers, cuffed and shackled, maced, pinned to the ground, joints dislocated, reach inside themselves somewhere and find the strength to stand up and shake off 4 and 5 trained men, throwing them into concrete walls, desk tops, bunks and steps, against all odds. I have feared for my life, when my most powerful, well directed punches, holds, kicks were as nothing.

Anyone teaching you can anticipate everything hasn't been in enough combat. Real MA training isn't radar, it's armor.

At one time, I wasn't prepared to kill, trained to kill, but unprepared. Conditioning has changed that.

spartanmachine
3rd January 2002, 06:55
Thanks for the dose of reality Joe, unfortunately some people just don't understand that real violence can be so unpredictable, instantaneous and overwhelming that it's impossible to say I would act this way or that way, only that I may have to go all out and that could mean killing someone if necessary in that moment.

koshoT
3rd January 2002, 23:34
Thank you for pointing out a mistake in my statement. I think I may have come off sounding as though MA can teach you to predict everything... and they can't. I was trying to say that MA should teach you to be prepared to fight at any time, even though the fight itself is completely unpredictable. The armour that you speak of is what I meant when I said that MA should prepare you for the fight. It should be something that you can use, if you need to. My friend's Dad works at the county correctional facility and I've heard many stories about unexpected attacks (especially knife fights, which get fairly gruesome)... but I dont' beleive that killing is the appropiate response for the unexpected. If you absolutely have no other choice what so ever, and if you don't kill the person then they are goign to kill you, then you may have to do it. And if you ahve to kill it should be done with respect and humility, I don't think you should detach yourself from beleiveing that the person you are killing is a person, becasue that raises a lot of moral issues. However, I only argue that every other option should be tried first.

Thanks again
Tom Berkery

joe yang
4th January 2002, 01:50
I don't mean to condone taking a life, to approve deliberately killing someone in self defense, even out of desperation. May I however make a distinction? I am prepared to defend my life with deadly force. That is to use techniques which may result in death, without regard for pulling my punches.

koshoT
5th January 2002, 06:16
Very good point Mr. Yang. I think you cut right to the heart of the issue. And I respect that you have the courage to do what you deem necassary. I just don't know if I would be able to do the same. I think I may be too "soft" to do what may be needed.

Thank you,
Tom Berkery

joe yang
5th January 2002, 15:10
Thank you Mr. Berkery, but it's not the courage to do what I deem neccessary, it's an obligation. I have a duty to make sure my partners and I go home at the end of the day. I hate using deadly force, I'd rather get lumped up. Deadly force encounters leave me very conflicted. I pray I never find myself responsible for anyones death. But I am prepared, I take that risk, it goes with my job.

spartanmachine
5th January 2002, 16:15
Well said Joe.

This perfectly exemplifies what we've been talking about.

In the real world killing to protect oneself or others is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

Kimpatsu
5th January 2002, 23:12
Kosta,
No it isn't.

joe yang
6th January 2002, 00:02
What I'm tryng to say is I'm kind of in the middle. No killing may not be necessary, but it can result. I'm referencing a win at any cost scenerio, win or die. Not to say you are trying to kill your opponent, but you aren't holding anything back.

Law enforcement handgun training best illustrates my point. Most agencies teach officers to shoot "center mass, to incapacitate". That is to say go for the biggest target, to stop the fight, to save your life. Okay, there is a real potential for a fatal hit here, but that isn't the point/objective. In reality, under duress, most people survive. Live fire is a whole different scenario. The point is, you aren't trying to kill your opponent, but you are taking that risk to win/survive.

Please, spare me the Roy Rogers, "Go for the gun hand" comments, at least till you've gone through a live fire stress course, bobbing and weaving, trying to hit moving targets, in low light, dodging friendly fire from half a dozen armed morons on either side of you.

Kimpatsu
6th January 2002, 00:31
I take your point, Joe, but the thing is, if death results accidentally, then you weren't competent enough in dealing with the violence that presented itself, given your admission that the intent was not to kill. As I've written before, my knowledge of guns is zero, but I can understand the "shoot for the centre" argument. This, however, in no way negates the issue of killing accidentally. Justifiable homicide is a very slippery area, but as we're not law enforcement officers, how capable are we of really discussing the issue? BTW, why are we talking about guns anyway? This is e-budo, not Soldier of Fortune :p
Happy new year to you both.
Best,

joe yang
6th January 2002, 04:23
Tony, it isn't about guns, I only brought up the "center mass" analogy to make a point. I've made the point before, MA training isn't radar, it's armor. It's not an early warning system, it is second strike, a fighting chance to survive a deadly ambush.

Granted, maybe I'm wrong, maybe I should be immune to danger, above attack, always have an escape route. Maybe if I keep training long enough I'll get there someday. I'm not there now, does that make me less of a martial artist? Does that preclude me from using the tools I have to defend myself? If I'm attacked and fighting for my life, should I risk loosing my life, because the techniques which might save me could lead to an accidental death? I know what my GM would say to that.

I suspect we have different ideas of what MA training means. I respect your opinions and points and your right to disagree with me. I'm just trying to make my point clear, so you'll understand where I'm coming from. I thought the handgun training theory helped illustrate my position. I don't think anyone has to be in law enforcement to share my view. In the end, we are all responsible for our own defense. The police won't be there for you if and when you get assaulted.

Kimpatsu
6th January 2002, 06:33
Agreed, Joe, the police won't be there, but how did you get into this position in the first place? My point is that it is absolutely wrong to take a life. No one has that right, not even accidentally. What are these techniques you're studying that could result in death if misapplied? You seem to be saying that you need to hold back in order to avoid killing, as full 100% application will cause a fatality. There is a better way than that. Learn effective but non-lethal techniques; that way you don't risk the accidental death, and you still remain safe.
Best,

joe yang
6th January 2002, 08:37
Tony, I've been shot at, as an innocent bystander. I've been stabbed because I wasn't paying attention, I've been mugged on the way home because I was naive. I've been burgled while I was sleeping. But I never looked for trouble and I refuse to take the blame.

Are you saying the world belongs to the strong? If I can be overpowered I should submit? Are you saying bad men don't want to hurt me and if they do it's my fault, I deserve it? There are no accidents? The victims I know who were beaten, stomped, strangled, burned, tortured asked for it, deserved it, where in the wrong place at the wrong time, there kung fu was poor? I don't have the right to defend myself at the risk of killing my attacker? I wouldn't be attacked in the first place if I was on the ball/behaving/in the right place?

PS. sorry, I think I got a little hostile here. I do some work for battered women, taking possesion of goods in Protection From Abuse cases. The whole victim mentality is kind of a hot button with me. Tony, personal appologies, I do respect your opinion.

spartanmachine
6th January 2002, 08:50
Joe I believe "center mass" is chosen as a primary target because that's the easiest part of the body to hit. Even snipers who are attempting to kill are trained to aim for center mass and shoot multiple shots.

spartanmachine
6th January 2002, 09:13
My point is that it is absolutely wrong to take a life. No one has that right, not even accidentally.

Tony please man , you seem like a really intelligent guy but you don't always make sense. How can you say no one has the right to take a life even accidentally. Accidents happen all the time, people can't always prevent things from happening , especially when dealing with a violent confrontation which is extremely unpredictable. You are starting to sound like you suffer from "Superman Syndrome" where you think that there are some secret techniques out there that are infallible or that a person can become infallible . We can't. We do make miscalculations , mistakes , especially when under great stress , like having our or someone we care about's life in danger.

Tony, do me a big favor, read the book Black Hawk Down. It deals with a real story about soldiers who were involved in a vicious firefight in Mogadishu, Somalia. This book is very difficult to read in the sense that the violence being described is insane. As a matter of fact the whole book attempts to describe an insane situation. I don't think you'll like this book in terms of an entertaining read. What it will do is help provoke thought about extreme violence.
This story is about as on the edge as life can get and although I extremely doubt that any of us will ever be in a situation like that( I sincerely hope not ! ) it demonstrates how everything can go wrong and what fighting for your life means.
Don't take this as me trying to convert you to my way of thinking Tony, just keep an open mind. This book will leave you with so much to think about, I often had to put it down and think about what I had just read.

Anyways you should think carefully about this idea that training can carry you through anything, and that you can be "On" all the time, real life rarely works that way.

Good Luck on your path Tony, and all the best this New Year.

Kimpatsu
6th January 2002, 11:42
Kosta,
No one has a right to take a life. Yes, accidents do happen, but that doesn't mean it was justified. Read the autobiography of the Dalai Lama if you doubt my point. (Since we're swapping recommended reading lists.)
Joe: You said it yourself: You were stabbed because you weren't paying attention. That's the problem. And when did I say anything about victim mentality? I think you've missed the point. By training, you can learn to keep calm in a crisis, apply appropriate technique, etc. You seem to think there's a limit to what you can learn. If so, once that limit is reached, will you stop training? Might as well; there's no value left for you in training. OTOH, if you believe that you have unlimited potential, then you can carry on. And either way, killing is still wrong.
Peace.

joe yang
6th January 2002, 13:01
Tony, on the contrary, you seem to think anyone who hasn't trained to the point where they can avoid any and all danger shouldn't be permited to use what training they do have in self defense. And yes killing is always wrong. Sometimes there is no right choice, unless you advocate letting the bad guys have their way.

Kimpatsu
6th January 2002, 22:35
No, Joe,
You've missed my point. You seem complacent in that what you know is good enough, even if it results accidentally in death. You don't seem to find killing sufficiently abhorrant, and that worries me.
BTW, there are other ways of preventing the bad guys from getting their way.
Best,

Sgathak
6th January 2002, 22:44
What if you throw a guy... can you guarantee he wont fall on his head?

What if you punch a man... can you guarantee that he hasnt mixed a little vodka with asprine and is now bleeding from a massive internal hemoragge?

What if you kick a man... can you guarantee that his broken bone wont severe an artery?

What if you choke a man... can you guarantee that you will hold him EXACTLY long enough that he passes out and not that extra half second it takes for him to die?

What if a man attacks you with a knife... can you guarantee that he will not fall on it if you trip him?

Kimpatsu
7th January 2002, 01:38
Sgathak,
You can if you're well trained enough. And accurate enough, and persevere enough, and...
There is no such thing as perfect technique. You can always be a little faster, a little bit more accurate, a little bit cleaner in your execution. The issue is to try, and not say, "I'm good enough to defend myself now, so I don't need to worry about what happens to the other guy." Fusatsu Katsujin; "Thou shalt not kill.
Best,

red_fists
7th January 2002, 02:02
Hi Sgathak.

I have to agree with Tony here.

A lot of MA have a concept of:
"Defanging the Snake" or Declawing the Tiger"
Granted I have heard it msotly in CMA and South Asian arts.

It is a way of leveling the playing field, you either disarm the Guy or incapacitate him in such a way that he is no longer a threat.

Accidents can and will happen, but than about 95% of them can be avoided as well.

A good MA should be aware of his surroundings and where potential dangers lie to both him and the attacker.
You might want to use something to your advantage, or get him into a situation where he might trip himself up and thus possibly end the confrontation.
Just some thoughts.

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 02:12
My point however is that you can NEVER guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will not harm the other person.

You can try...

But when it comes down to it, can you guarantee that you will not kill?

red_fists
7th January 2002, 02:34
Hi Sgathak.

Of course nothing is ever 100% reliable.

But you should still aim for that 100% mark, and I guess that is what Tony meant.

IMHO, too many People take the easy stance and after something happens simply say:
"Too bad it happened, not my fault. Yes, it could have been prevented, but ....".

But I agree with you there is NO way that I can say that I won't harm the person excessively.

For me the goal of MA is simply:
"To be better tomorrow than I am today in all aspects".

Peace and a happy New Year.

joe yang
7th January 2002, 02:46
I'm with Sgathak. And what about the not-so-good martial artist? Sure, we all want to be our best, but are we under any obligation to be that good all the time, right now? What if we are still struggling to get there? Does this mean our lives are unworthy of defending? And yes there are always alternatives, but in the heat of combat, we don't always see them, or make the right choice. Does this make us bad people? Maybe you end up in the wrong place, at the wrong time, get caught off guard, suddenly your wounded and facing a knife attack. Maybe it's me, but I think the attacker is the bad guy here. I'm not going to play pitty pat, looking for a "soft" option. Neither am I I'm not going to waste time looking for a kill. I'm not even going to worry about good technique. I'm going to use whatever means are at hand to end it. I'll live, or die with the results. The arm chair quarterbacks can tell me what I did wrong, scold me on technique, call me an amature, when it's all over. I might even buy them a beer.

red_fists
7th January 2002, 03:07
Hi Joe.

I think the thinking of Martial Artists has changed a lot in the last 100yrs.

In the old Days when you killed somebody, you might be facing their Family who now wanted you dead.
And thus the situation was "kill and be hunted" or incapacitate the Guy, or avoid a fight and both walk away.
There was no "Rather judged by 12, than carried by 6 " back than.

Now it is all settled in court and money can buy a lot of freedom and ease of mind.
Personally, I am against teaching MA to everybody off the street. Most of the really dangerous non-MA Skills are
not taught to everybody
I can't go and learn to detonate Explosives easy, nor will I be allowed close to them until I can proove that I can handle it. Nor can I buy them without a Licence.
Martial Arts used to be restricted to the Warrior Caste and that is where I still believe they should be. Not taught at Mall and Gym Dojo's, when the average person can order sharpened weapons via Mail order and online without any proof of credentials.
For me a semi-trained Martial Artist is like a semi-trained Surgeon. I don't want either one "operating" on me.
But than there are many that think that being semi-trained is good enough to do "open heart" Surgery on your Opponent.

Funnily, enough on the Battel field it was always soldier vs soldier, general vs general, leader vs leader.
Could it be because of their Combat Skill levels??
Also, I don't think that MA means "Self Defense" but rather "Fighting/Survival Skills".

But than that is my Opinion and only worth about 0.2 Dollar.
Oh, Boy Am I going to get it for this Post.

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 03:17
Funnily, enough on the Battel field it was always soldier vs soldier, general vs general, leader vs leader.

And sometimes its some stupid private who got caught in the jungle taking a dump... and now he has to kick, bite, and throw sh*t (yes and maybe even **gasp** kill something) like he is some sort of monkey at the zoo just so he can go home to keep his momma from crying over his flag covered coffin.



J Robbins

Kimpatsu
7th January 2002, 03:44
Joe Yang wrote:

but are we under any obligation to be that good all the time?
Yes, we are under obligation to try. You seem to be denying that you have any responsibility in the matter. "I killed him, but he asked for it." Not only is that unconscionable, but it would go down like a lead balloon with a jury.
BTW, I don't think anybody on this forum can be accused of being an armchair quarterback.
Sgathak: I don't quite follow your statement. Could you elaborate? We're not soldiers, and this is not a battlefield, so I don't follow the military analogy.
TIA,

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 04:00
are you FOLLOWING the conversation?

didnt you see the quote refrenced?

Think about it.

The Private is a soldier... but low man on the totem pole. He knows little of his profession... of his potential as a warrior he knows only that there are others better than he is. Maybe he tries to better himself but now, he is a know nothing idiot taking a dump in the jungle.

All he can do is fight as best he can... Maybe all he does is punch a guy and run, maybe he breaks a guys neck.

His responsibilty, as a soldier and a human being, is to return home.

Is he wrong to fight back? Does his skill in the arts of war delimit his right to defend himself? Should he NOT fight because he isnt as skilled as his teachers? Because he isnt good enough to CAPTURE he should allow himself to be captured or killed?

YOU may not be a soldier, but you are a human, a human who may just slip up (as humans occasionally do) and maybe just maybe have to use what little it is you know... Hopefully it wont be in some jungle.

Kimpatsu
7th January 2002, 04:14
Sgathak,
What's with the hostility? I only asked a question.

His responsibilty... is to return home
No, his responsibility is to stay safe (returning home is predicated upon that), and to consider the other person. If you use MA, you have a responsibility to the other person, too, and if our hypothetical soldier is not an MA practitioner, then this brings me back to my earlier question: What relevance does this supposition have to e-budo as a forum?
Answers on a postcard, please...

red_fists
7th January 2002, 04:22
Hi Sgathak.

My Reference was to traditional warfare a few hundred years back.
Your talk about a modern day situtation.
2 very different scenarios which cannot be compared at all.

You are talking about extreme stituations, IME, People are unlikely to get into those under normal circumstances.

Of course if you get thrust into one of those it is still up to you to fight/survive to your best abilites.
But at the same time you must be fully aware of your skill level and what might result be a possible outcome from using it.

In a court an excuse like, "Sorry, I am a trained Martial Artist and I used a deadly blow, which I cannot sufficiently control yet so that he would only be stunned."
will sound a bit strange.

Peace.

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 06:24
the "hostility" comes from a frustration of trying to have a conversation with someone(s) who seem to have taken a vacation from the real world. A place where "murphys law" rules supreme! A place where reality all too often interjects itself at inopportune moments.

Due to the nature of my analogy I must disagree with your assertion that his duty is to "stay safe"... If your only duty is to "stay safe" then lock yourself in a padded room and dont leave it... ever.

A Soldier, a Warrior, a Martial artist... by nature of knowledge, profession, or both does not "stay safe". They put themselves into situations wherein their skills are tested. The battlefield, the office, the gym. Some locations are more deadly than others, some locations you choose, some are chosen.

I also fully disagree that when lives are the line you have any duty the person about to take yours! Anyone who honestly beleives so is looking at the world through rose coloered glasses... but that, to be honest, is really neither here nor there...

Despite your conclusion that we are content being so unrefined in technique that we would be "happy" with a death and shrug it off, well... that is both idiotic and insulting.

I dont know about others here but I dont learn martial arts to be a ground pounding thug. I am however aware of my current limitations and consider them in my responses. If your so perfect in technique and skill, then I bow to your awesome power and knowledge. I however do not think that because I or others have not yet reached your perfection that we should be deemed unsuitable for the act of self defense. If that is not your meaning it is certainly your implication.

In regards to the clarification made by Red Fists and time frames... unfortunatly warfare is warfare. Change the weapons, the location, and titles and it could be anyone anywhere...

A private in the Jungle. A young Indian brave in the willow brush. A Chinese soldier defedning the border with mongolia. A samurai footsoldier along the bank of some river. A guy in LA who just happened to walk into the wrong Taco Bell at the wrong time.
The situation remains the same....

As for your court excuse... I dont even know what to say to that. Its self incriminating and I dont know about where you guys are, but here in the US you cant even be FORCED to say something like that in court. To be flat out honest this is what I would say if placed in such a situation... "Your honor, I was attacked by John Q Doe, I was afraid for my life and in an attempt to defend myself I fought back as best I could. I didnt want to hurt him but I didnt want him to hurt me either. He punched (kicked, stabbed, pulled a gun on me) and I fought back, as we fought he fell (tripped, slipped, lost balance, etc) and my punch landed wrong. He hit his head and started shaking... I yelled for help and called 911 on my cell phone. I administered CPR but he died before the paramedics got there."

Reality does sound less strange doesnt it?


J Robbins

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 06:43
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

Kit LeBlanc
7th January 2002, 06:43
Sgathak,

"A Soldier, a Warrior, a Martial artist... by nature of knowledge, profession, or both does not "stay safe". They put themselves into situations wherein their skills are tested. The battlefield, the office, the gym. Some locations are more deadly than others, some locations you choose, some are chosen. "

The office?!? The gym?!? Please. A martial artist does not a soldier or warrior make..this thread makes that pretty obvious. Those days are long gone.


Tony,

While I respect your views, and the fact that you consistently hold to them on some of the various posts I have seen you make here on E-budo, I must take issue with what appears to me, at least, to be a somewhat arrogant stance.

Are YOU that good? Are YOU capable of total awareness, at all times, so that you will not be forced by circumstances to possibly be in a situation where you might have to kill?

Is YOUR skill such that under any and all circumstances wherein which you may be forced to use those skills, you will have total control over the results of your techniques?

I doubt it. At least not if you live a normal life outside of a temple.

You may choose not to kill.....and in so doing give up your own life (yours to give), or (let's hope not) the life a loved one. This may be in keeping with your beliefs. The rest of us are not wrong because it does not fit in with ours.

If this is the ideal you strive for, so be it. I commend you for sticking to it.

Others do not hold to that ideal. Some, as Joe has hinted at, place themselves in danger coming to the aid of other people as a professional choice, or in simply being altruistic. Others have unfortunately come to be able to tell the difference between the reality of violence and an ideal, and with full knowledge of that reality, choose to face it and the consequence that they may have to one day take a life, or die to in trying to save another's.

Personally, I find these threads to be somewhat ridiculous. Armchair theorizing by people seeking to validate their own bad selves, trying to convince themselves more than others. Other than persons who have been in a position to do so, no one knows whether they will be capable of making the choice to kill or to show mercy.

Having been legally justified on several occasions with using a firearm to shoot someone and possible kill them, and not doing so, I find the comments of people who blithely state they would kill to be somewhat amusing. Having been in a situation where my own life was in danger and having to even make that choice, I find anyone who does not place themselves in harm's way to come to the aid of others on a regular basis saying that through proper training and awareness one should never find themselves to be in that position to be the height of naive hubris.

red_fists
7th January 2002, 06:44
Hi Sgathak.

Granted I have not been in an US Court.

But the places where I have been it was always a case of the Martial Artist holding a higher duty to prevent violence and injury.

As a trained Martial Artist is often likened to a "weapon", as those Countries hold that Self Defense cannot come from somebody using a superior weapon or fighting skill.

As a trained Fighter the saying "being afraid for my Life" would not hold water in the Courts that I have seen, as we are supposed to train to handle these sitautions. (stress levels, etc)

If it was a true accident an autopsy & investigation would show that and you would be cleared, the same if there were witnesses present.

A lot of Countries now open a murder investigation if a death results in a fight without a witness.

Sad, but we Martial Artists often get the short end of the stick.

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 06:58
The office?!? The gym?!? Please. A martial artist does not a soldier or warrior make..this thread makes that pretty obvious. Those days are long gone

Refrence Richard Marcinkos "Leadership Secrets of a Rouge Warrior"

See if you still hold to that

To me, warriorship is a mindset... not defined by vocation or avocation.


J Robbins

Sgathak
7th January 2002, 07:03
you all may be interested in refrenceing the following thread...

http://www.budoseek.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1292

Even an "armchair theorist" can get some perspective from this... even if it is only one perspective of many.

J Robbins

spartanmachine
7th January 2002, 07:30
As for your court excuse... I dont even know what to say to that. Its self incriminating and I dont know about where you guys are, but here in the US you cant even be FORCED to say something like that in court. To be flat out honest this is what I would say if placed in such a situation... "Your honor, I was attacked by John Q Doe, I was afraid for my life and in an attempt to defend myself I fought back as best I could. I didnt want to hurt him but I didnt want him to hurt me either. He punched (kicked, stabbed, pulled a gun on me) and I fought back, as we fought he fell (tripped, slipped, lost balance, etc) and my punch landed wrong. He hit his head and started shaking... I yelled for help and called 911 on my cell phone. I administered CPR but he died before the paramedics got there."

Exactly, a person's state of mind as well as the specifics of a situation will always mean alot more in court than the fact that a person was a " martial artist ".
The simple fact of the matter is that a person with enough motivation and adrenaline will always be more dangerous than any " good " martial artist on an average day. That's just a simple fact , you can have all the training in the world but without the resolve to go all out when necessary it just won't happen. I've seen guys who were absolutely outstanding martial artists get clobbered wearing protective gear and going all out against guys who were experienced at going all out. This wasn't sport fighting it was anything goes training. This isn't to say that training is pointless , absolutely not , a well trained individual with fighting spirit is very dangerous but he isn't god. In other words he can't say I will completely control the fight , it just doesn't work that way and any judge or jury who would be stupid enough to believe that is very dangerous to the citizens of that society. Sure someone would be very wrong if they were trained and got mugged only to beat their attacker to death while he was trying to run away. The courts would obviously differentiate between this and just the fact that someone was a martial artist. Simply put , it's impossible to be completely ready for anything at anytime regardless of what your Sensei tells you, if that is what he's telling you then he's doing you a great diservice.

Kit LeBlanc
7th January 2002, 07:36
Dunno where the idea that the courts view you differently if you study martial arts comes from...or that taking "a single martial arts class" will change how you are seen (*in the US that is...some pretty scary stuff happens overseas*).

As long as you act appropriately in a self defense situation it probably won't be an issue. You will not be expected to change your tactics or react any differently to stress or fear because of your "training." We are not expected as police officers to charge you any differently because you used martial arts techniques in assaulting anyone.

I went to court after a use of force as a civilian security officer once. The guy was claiming we broke his knee, did all sorts of other damage, and of course, caused all sorts of emotional scarring.

His attorney asked maybe two or three questions about my martial arts training and it was never brought up again.

Spoke with Bob Willis, one of the Use of Force trainers for Calibre Press and an expert witness who testifies in court all over the country in officer involved uses of force and he told me that it has NEVER been an issue in any case he has experience with (i.e. an officer using too much force because he was a "martial arts expert.")

It may work against you if the OTHER guy says you started busting moves and so he reacted to your perceived fighting skill.

Go too far in a self defense situation and maybe it will. Use the other guy as a punching bag and go way beyond meeting equal force and yeah, it will probably be an issue. Have yourself plastered all over the Internet with your "deadly hands" and "battlefield techniques" and someone gets wind of it after you screw up and really hurt someone, and yeah, you'll probably hear about it.

Here's one vote for solid information, not alarmist half-truths.

red_fists
7th January 2002, 07:52
Hi Kit.

How would the US Courts rule in the following situations.

1.) Defender drops the Opponent with a punch to the Jaw.
2.) Defender drops an Opponent by doing a MA sidekick and breaking his Hip or worse.

If what you say is true than both cases should get the same Court result.
Even though a non-trained person won't have the skill to break that hip.

Both are non-lethal responses, granted in the 2nd case a hip surgery is needed.
Have fun.

red_fists
7th January 2002, 08:19
Kosta.


That's just a simple fact , you can have all the training in the world but without the resolve to go all out when necessary it just won't happen.

This is what kind of puzzles me. I thought that the MA training was supposed to prepare you for combat and get you into the right mindset.

Maybe I am reading a different MA Book than you.

Kit Le-Blanc.

The different viewing in Courts of martial artists vs non-martial artist is the same as in many Countries you are "guilty until prooven innocent".

My Home Country has very strict Gun Control Laws, and a very strict Law about superior Force and Self Defense. Also all forms of hidden Weapons are illegal.

I once nearly got nailed because a witness thought my response to the attack was too slow and therefor did not qualify as a natural reaction. (I think 3 seconds is the limit)
Luckily the other 3 witnesses contradicted him.

Yes, Martial Artists that have reached a certain level are considered as dangerous as some weapons (Knife, Batons, etc).

Have fun.

Rosi
7th January 2002, 13:28
Let me put the points as i see them.

1. Being able to control your attacker(s) without injuring them in any way is an ultimate ideal. It is a goal we aim towards.

2. Nobody is good enough to be able to do that in every situation. What if he's twice your size? What if there are five of them? What if they all have knives? What if they're trained knife fighters? We can all come up with what ifs where it would be impossible to defend ourselves at our current level of skill. As we get better the situations may change, but they still exist. In the real world, size and strength do matter, numbers matter, weapons matter.

3. The question is not what you would do in an ideal world with an ideal level of skill (i presume we're all agreed on that one) but what you would do if you were attacked today with the level of skill you currently have. Today i can't guarantee my punch won't kill someone - i can't tell the difference between someone who will have a fatal brain haemorrhage as a result of being hit and someone who won't (persuading my attacker to pop down to the hospital for an MRI scan before assaulting me, while an interesting solution, might prove somewhat problematic :(); today i can't guarantee to throw someone without dropping them on their head if they don't know how to breakfall. In both these cases, i know from hard experience that i'd be doing all i can just to make something work at all. I've not stopped learning - and who knows, tomorrow may be different - but unfortunately muggers and rapists don't always wait for you to get your technique perfect before attacking you.

Essentially there is a trade off between care for the attacker and effectiveness. If you are determined not to hurt someone (eg you're a teacher being assaulted by a fourteen year old) then your options are much more limited and you are in more danger of being hurt. Where on the scale your response comes depends on your values and the situation at hand.

As someone once said - Aikido is the art of controlling an attacker without harming them in any way. Unless of course, they don't know how to ukemi (breakfall) in which case you break their wrist in 17 different places. ;)

Kimpatsu
7th January 2002, 13:32
Rosi, you've missed the point. What are you doing in a situation facing five knife fighters (you're dead anyway if that happens). Where was your zanshin?
But leaving that aside, we must strive for the ideal, because failure to do so is to abrogate our responsibilities. As I posted earlier, we are responsible for our opponents as well as ourselves.
Best,

Rosi
7th January 2002, 13:51
I'm just constructing a counterexample. It's true that many people get attacked because of a lack of awareness, but that's not always the case. Perhaps for the sake of argument they broke into your house while you were asleep. Or perhaps you're on an aeroplane :(

I agree entirely that you're probably going to die in that particular situation. But somewhere along the scale from one small untrained unarmed person to five trained knife fighters, there has to be a situation where you're going to have to do everything you can just to survive. In that situation, it might well be a choice between taking care of your opponent and keeping yourself safe. (This isn't the same question as the choice between not killing your opponent and keeping yourself safe)

I also agree that we should strive for an ideal level of skill, but we also have to accept the level we currently have and decide what we should do based on that. What would you do if you had to make that decision today?

spartanmachine
7th January 2002, 19:00
This is what kind of puzzles me. I thought that the MA training was supposed to prepare you for combat and get you into the right mindset.

Well that obviously depends on where you're training and with whom. Unfortunately with sucker punches and guns and the element of surprise, it's impossible to always be able to get into the " right mindset ".





What are you doing in a situation facing five knife fighters (you're dead anyway if that happens).

That's not necessarily true. It doesn't mean that they will kill you, ex. they may just want your money , you might be able to RUN , You might be able to make it to your car and run them over , etc... , The situation may call for different responses, what is for sure is that violent situations contain an element of unpredictability where anything can and sometimes does happen.

Tony , I understand that ideally you don't want to have to kill someone. If you can get away alive and relativly unharmed then that's what important. Obviously in any confrontation you try to survive with the least violence possible on both parts, unfortunately that isn't always possible.

koshoT
7th January 2002, 20:36
I agree with Mr. Kehoe when he said, "I take your point, Joe, but the thing is, if death results accidentally, then you weren't competent enough in dealing with the violence that presented itself, given your admission that the intent was not to kill." Granted I myself am no where's near competent in being able to handle myself in a life or death situation without harming the assialant.

There are two points I would like to bring up:

1. I beleive that we are confused (or at least I am) as to what type of life or death situation we imagine ourselves in. Are we in a situation alone with an assialant trying to kill us, or just rob us? OR are we with family and friends and we are needed to protect them. I think once we clarify which situation we are all discussing then we may begin to make more sense (or then maybe I will ;) ). I beleive that in a one-on-one situation there should be no reason, other than not being skilled enough (yes I'm in that catagorie), to have to take the attackers life. If you have to protect family and friends, then it MAY (and a very big IF on that one) be neccassary for you to take a life in order to protect your family or friends. However, either way I still beleive that even if you have no other choice than to take a life, it is still morally wrong. Of course that is my opinion on the matter, and I am sure that others do not share the same view.

2. I would just like to take the time to explain how my MA (and of course how I) would deal with life and death situations. I do Kosho because I like it's philosophy of defence tempered with morality. (And I am sure everyone can find similarities to their arts as well). First and foremost we try to escape and avoid conflict if at all possible. (This starts with observation, awareness and kindness). If you cannot escape easily then you may have to trip, or hit your attacker to give yourself the chance to run away. If you cannot possibly escape, or if the situation requires you to stay in the area to possibly defend freinds and family, then you would have to utilize your "controling" arts. There are numerous ways to halt an attacker and render them harmless without being forced to kill that person (Aikido's philosophy is to use non-lethal defence), locking, tripping, even hitting, (disencourgment hitting, not lethal hitting) ect. can be utilized. If you for some reason cannot control your attacker then you may have to use your "destructive" arts. These should be done as a last resort, and should never be taken lightly. Destructive arts include muscular strikes, knocking-out the opponent, breaking an oppenents legs or arms, ect. Last, very dead last are ways to kill an opponent, these should never be utilized during peacetime. The only problem with this whole way of dealing with an attacker is the way in which people learn it. It is easiest to learn how to hit a person, it is harder to learn how to control an attacker, and the very hardest thing to learn is how to avoid contact with the opponent all together. The highest form of MA, in my opinion, is winning the fight with no body contact. Second highest is using the controling arts. The lowest (this does not imply at all that hitting, striking, and breaking are at all easy or unneccassary, but they fall below the other two arts), and easiest to do for a beginner, is the destructive arts; hitting and hurting the opponent.

Since I am a beginner, I do not know if I would be able to leave a life or death situation without at least injurying the attacker, but I would do my best not to kill him or her, because after all they are another human being. And in my opinion human beings, no matter how "evil" they seem, are still good at heart and can be reformed. I am still under the opinion that killing is wrong no matter what, even if I may have to one day do it to save my own life.


Thank you for listening to my ramblings, as I am sure that all these things have been considered before.
Tom Berkery:D

Rosi
7th January 2002, 22:40
Personally i'd say that methods of avoiding conflict in the first place are the easiest, not the hardest to learn, which is all the more reason to rely on them as your primary method of defence. Personally, i believe short self defence courses should concentrate on these almost exclusively - just by understanding a few basic principles you can make yourself a lot safer. Physical self defence takes endless repetitions and constant practice to be effective. Avoiding conflict, at it's most basic, is almost a matter of common sense - although it isn't as common as the name suggests.

koshoT
8th January 2002, 03:31
Mr. Rosi, I do see your point.

And you do have a good point. Because avoiding conflict in some cases is as easy as common sense. Sometimes it takes only a level-head to carry you to safety. However, when it comes to a person who really wants to hurt you, it can be an entirely different thing. And to avoid being touch, and to make hardly any contact at all, is a rare and subtle skill only possessed by those Great Masters (there is video footage of Ueshiba tossing many people with the smallest of touchs). That is the hardest to learn, to make all of your "techniques" so hidden and subtle that to an onlooker it appears as though you have done nothing. But I really don't know much about these things, this is mainly what I have been told by my Sensei, and by a few Shihan.

Again though, you are right, there are many simple things you can learn to escape from conflict. I was first taught how to avoid a punch before I learned how to make a fist. On the other hand though, there is more to escaping and avoidance of conflict then I know, or that I will learn for a long time.

Thank you,
Tom Berkery

Kit LeBlanc
8th January 2002, 03:31
Originally posted by red_fists
Hi Kit.

How would the US Courts rule in the following situations.

1.) Defender drops the Opponent with a punch to the Jaw.
2.) Defender drops an Opponent by doing a MA sidekick and breaking his Hip or worse.

If what you say is true than both cases should get the same Court result.
Even though a non-trained person won't have the skill to break that hip.

Both are non-lethal responses, granted in the 2nd case a hip surgery is needed.
Have fun.

The example is meaningless without knowing what the ATTACKER did... and don't be so sure a mere mortal ..OOPS I mean a non-martial artist, couldn't break a hip.

If the level of force in response is justified, there should be no problem. Non-lethal does not necessarily equate to what is reasonable, nor to what is equal force with equal force.

Kimpatsu
8th January 2002, 03:34
Rosi,
Could you post your full name, please?
TIA,

Kit LeBlanc
8th January 2002, 03:36
Originally posted by red_fists
Kosta.



This is what kind of puzzles me. I thought that the MA training was supposed to prepare you for combat and get you into the right mindset.

Maybe I am reading a different MA Book than you.

Kit Le-Blanc.

The different viewing in Courts of martial artists vs non-martial artist is the same as in many Countries you are "guilty until prooven innocent".

My Home Country has very strict Gun Control Laws, and a very strict Law about superior Force and Self Defense. Also all forms of hidden Weapons are illegal.

I once nearly got nailed because a witness thought my response to the attack was too slow and therefor did not qualify as a natural reaction. (I think 3 seconds is the limit)
Luckily the other 3 witnesses contradicted him.

Yes, Martial Artists that have reached a certain level are considered as dangerous as some weapons (Knife, Batons, etc).

Have fun.

Uhh, that's why I said in the US. Many countries, as it sounds like yours does, have unrealistic laws RE: martial arts and self defense.

Here, martial artists do not have any extra burden upon them in a self defense situation...they are not considered "deadly weapons." Will your martial arts training be an issue? Maybe. Depends on the nature of the assault and how you reacted.

red_fists
8th January 2002, 03:54
Hi Kit.

They may sound unreasonable, but at the same time most trained Martial Artists will think twice before globbering somebody.

Plus, we are also required to give verbal warning before a fight ensues that we are trained to fight. Same for Boxers, etc.

At the same time all Males in my Home country over the age of 18 have had Military training and need to go for a refresher course every 2 years.

Pleasures, of livig in a Police state. ;)

Kimpatsu
8th January 2002, 04:20
Hi, Peter,
We're not required to verbally warn someone. Why give away a strategic advantage?
Best,

Kit LeBlanc
8th January 2002, 04:20
Originally posted by red_fists
Hi Kit.


Plus, we are also required to give verbal warning before a fight ensues that we are trained to fight. Same for Boxers, etc.

Pleasures, of livig in a Police state. ;)

Oh, MAN!!

I don't envy you at all...that really is not pleasant.

Good Luck. Hope you never have to hurt anybody in a fight...I can imagine what prisons are like in your homeland.

red_fists
8th January 2002, 04:30
Hi Kit.

There is also a good side to it. Not many people want to fight after the warning. ;)

If they want to fight after the warning , well lets say they had been warned. We can now get legally medieval on them. :D

spartanmachine
8th January 2002, 07:08
I beleive that in a one-on-one situation there should be no reason, other than not being skilled enough (yes I'm in that catagorie), to have to take the attackers life. If you have to protect family and friends, then it MAY (and a very big IF on that one) be neccassary for you to take a life in order to protect your family or friends.

Just think about this: If someone kills you , who will take care of your family?

red_fists
8th January 2002, 07:16
Just think about this: If someone kills you , who will take care of your family?

Who will take care of your Family, if you die in a car accident that is caused by someone else? :confused:
In any case your Family should be looked after and provided for if you cannot do so anymore.

I agree with Kosho there are a few steps of escalation before you have to start using deadly force against an opponent.
Or even before it gets to a level where "deadly" accidents can occur.

But I guess your response depends on the MA style and intensity of training you have done.

Peace. :wave:

spartanmachine
8th January 2002, 07:30
I must admit I have trained in alot of hard styles , but I've also trained in Brazilian Jiujitsu for 5 years and I favor choking techniques because of the fact that you can easily render someone unconcious without harming them. This is one of the reasons that I prefer chokes to joint locks. If a person on the street doesn't quit from a submission hold, ( very possible ) breaking their arm or leg isn't a very appealing option. As well a choke is a great way to render someone harmless without risking their life.
Unfortunately with the use of knives and guns, more lethal methods MAY be necessary.
I definetely agree though that verbal and physical de-escalation and diffusing skills should be your first line of defense and any martial arts school that doesn't teach these is short changing their students.

red_fists
8th January 2002, 07:41
Hi Kosta.

Personally, I prefer what are called the "softer" :rolleyes: arts.

Twice I managed to end a situation by applying one of our basic techniques, which dislocate the opponents shoulder plus he ends up on the ground.
Breaking the Elbow is another option.

Personally, I don't like chokes or submission moves/holds.

Kimpatsu
8th January 2002, 07:47
To reply to Kosta's posting, I think that if the opponent has a gun, you're dead anyway. I take the point about choke holds, however; I'm quite fond of them myself.
Best,

red_fists
8th January 2002, 07:52
Hi Tony.

It depends on who holds the Gun and the situation.

IME, most of the People that carry a Gun have insufficient training in using them and rely solely on the gun scaring of any attacker.

Kimpatsu
8th January 2002, 08:10
Hi, Peter,
Untrained people merely increase the risk of the gun going off accidentally. You still get shot. Guns are an almost-impossible proposition.
Bang!

Sgathak
8th January 2002, 08:43
Untrained people merely increase the risk of the gun going off accidentally. You still get shot. Guns are an almost-impossible proposition.


I disagree... but thats a diffrent discussion



J Robbins

Kimpatsu
8th January 2002, 13:21
Sgathak,
With what exactly do you disagree, and why? Start a new thread if you like.
TIA,

spartanmachine
8th January 2002, 20:12
Twice I managed to end a situation by applying one of our basic techniques, which dislocate the opponents shoulder plus he ends up on the ground.

Peter, wouldn't this be considered a submission hold? I mean submission holds break the joint or limb with continued increasing pressure.

Personally, I don't like chokes or submission moves/holds

Why not ?

Sgathak
8th January 2002, 20:18
It should be a relativly quick digression (not like this thread hasnt had its share already) and actually has some relavence to the topic so Ill keep it here... for now.

You stated that untrained people increase the likelyhood of shots fired correct? If you were refering to the untrained person being the pistol carrier, the averages of accidental discharges drop... at least in a combative situation. The untrained person tends to freeze. often not even a single shot goes off. They cant get past the thought of "Im about to shoot someone"... they often dont even release the safety.

If you were refering to an untrained defender against a gunman, I agree a bit more with you, though any defense is a good defense when your life is on the line. Who knows, maybe some schoolyard slap-fighting is all thats needed to drop someone who isnt expecting a rush from you.

The actual likelyhood of getting HIT even if a gun does discharge is relativly small. Remember, even a large man is still a rather small target all things considered. Even a hit to well over 80% of the body isnt likely to be fatal. Will it hurt? Oh hell yeah, but will it kill you? unlikely. In reality you must either be hit "center mass" or in the head. most other hits will only cause death if you allow yourself to go into shock, if you were hit in an artery, or if you dont see a Doc very soon.

Also, this entire thread has been filled with the admonitions too increase your skills and to get better and better... Well lets remember that only about 20% of your body is likely to be a "kill zone". Now think about your footwork training. Its hard to hit a moving target, so if you keep moving (as best you can) your chances of being hit are reduced. Lets say for the purposes of this discussion your chances drop 5%. You now only have a 15% chance of getting hit in a deadly area, and only because you employed footwork.

Now let us also remember that unlike a knife, a gun can only hurt you one way, it must be pointed at you. through body positioning you can cause the barrel to no longer be pointed AT you, if even for a split second (turning the body abruptly and useing footwork to "slide" past the barrel of the gun is one example I can think of) and you can then move inside or to the outside. Once you are no longer being pointed AT you are relativly "safe".

At range, distance is your friend. remember the percentages above? The farther you are, the lower the percentage of a deadly hit. Ive heard statistics that say your average untrained gunman has less than 3% chance of hitting a moving target at more than 20 yards. Good odds huh?

Close in, movement and body positioning (as well as gun awareness... "wheres he pointing it? Head? Heart? Neck? Kidneys?") allow you to manouver to a safe area and to dispatch your opponent, wether that be a disarm, or a neck stomp.

Thourough training in disarms, body positioning, and an understanding of how likely you really are to getting hurt helps to turn the table quite a bit. Now I dont think Im some superman who can singlehandedly disarm a Navy SEAL platoon but one thing Im not going to do is give up to an "impossible proposition"

red_fists
8th January 2002, 23:16
Hi Kosta.

No, it is not a submission hold as the Opponent is lying next to me on the ground.
Yes, I could hold him down but than I was trained to always be ready for the next attack.

The same for Choke & submission holds I believe that they are good if you fight against a confirmed single Opponent.

When facing multiple Opponents you should be flexible and not be tied down by subduing one Indiviudal.
Also choking somebody out opens a potential danger, as you never quiet sure when he is coming round again.

Plus, I found that often so called "bystanders" or newly arrived parties will try to stop you from having somebody in a choke or submisson hold.

But again it depends on location and situation.

Sgathak.
I agree with you on the gun issue. IME, too many People are not aware of what a Gun can do or cannot do. Too many people see it as the way to end all fights.

Also a gun is an attack, medium to long range weapon and I still consider it a slow weapon. Yep,the Bullet is fast, but it still takes time to aim and pull the trigger.

The Person taught me Gun defense taught us to dodge the point of aim. As you said keep moving, right and left, high and low.
Also Guns become rather inefficient if you can move in close to the Person using them.
Dodging Bullets is harder.

Finally, I also firmly believe that a Weapon is only as good as the Person using it.

Anyhuh, happy training.

Kimpatsu
9th January 2002, 01:58
Sgathak,
I see where you're coming from, but isn't an untrained gunman (i.e., street mugger) likely to shoot you accidentally? Even supposing he can't hit the side of a barn door at range, there's still a good risk of your being hit, I would have thought. Where exactly did you get your statistics? (I mean, what is the authority source you're quoting?)
As to ashi-sabaki and other avoidance, while I agree they increase your chances of successful flight, they're very difficult to master. (And I say that after 17 years of Shorinji Kempo.) That's not to say you shouldn't try, but one needs to be realistic.
Now bring on the Navy SEALs... :smokin:

spartanmachine
9th January 2002, 06:36
The same for Choke & submission holds I believe that they are good if you fight against a confirmed single Opponent.

This is true, unless of course you stun one guy then get the other in a quick choke, then you take off.

Plus, I found that often so called "bystanders" or newly arrived parties will try to stop you from having somebody in a choke or submisson hold.

Just hold on as tight as you can, it doesn't take that long , and if you're being victimized, it's quite possible people will help you.

Sgathak
9th January 2002, 08:21
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Sgathak,
I see where you're coming from, but isn't an untrained gunman (i.e., street mugger) likely to shoot you accidentally?

To quote a song from Everlast "And all of a sudden hes like Jesse James, Holdin up people for their watches and chains, but hes from business school and hes nervous with the tool and he winds up on his back in a bloody pool" ... The above quote is in refrence to a man who gets hooked on drugs and to pay for his habit he starts mugging people, but it is his untrained, unrefined use of the gun which ends up putting HIM down. Unless your in a "gang area" most people likely to use a gun on you are doing it to get money to feed habits... not because they are trying to prove something or because they enjoy it.


Even supposing he can't hit the side of a barn door at range, there's still a good risk of your being hit, I would have thought.

Like I said, the area that likely to KILL you is rather small in proportion to the body... around 80% of your mass is "safe"... it may break bones, and itll hurt like a "beeeotch" but your unlikely to die if you keep your head on straight.


Where exactly did you get your statistics? (I mean, what is the authority source you're quoting?)

Several sources... the 20% mass thing is relativly well documented. Look at burn percentage charts to see just how much body is actually "center mass"... not alot.

The 15% refrence was a "guesstimation" mostly... not gosple but it does make sense to me.

The 3% refrence has been told to me by several police friends.


As to ashi-sabaki and other avoidance, while I agree they increase your chances of successful flight, they're very difficult to master.

In my art(s) we train quite a bit in footwork and body positioning... Not all arts do this. Like I said, I dont feel like I could disarm a SEAL team, but I do think that given the proper ranges, I could move to where I needed to move to to escape a main body mass hit.


(And I say that after 17 years of Shorinji Kempo.) That's not to say you shouldn't try, but one needs to be realistic.


Reality shows that a bullet (the part of a gun that kills) is less than 1/2 inch in size as it moves through the air. Thats less than 1/2 the size of most people first bone of their index finger... pretty small when you think about it. Is a gun dangerous? You better believe it! but does it hurl a screaming heat seeking fireball of death at you everytime the trigger gets pulled? Nope.

Kit LeBlanc
10th January 2002, 01:31
Sgathak,

Please tell me you are not teaching this to your students....

Yeah, being shot with a handgun, you have a better chance than not of surviving. They are relatively weak rounds. But then again we have 8 and 10 and 15 round magazines that, darn it, the bad guys have too! And many of those rounds get BIGGER when they flatten out on hitting your body!

I hope you are not relying on such opinions in a live encounter with a gun. There are plenty of arteries in that 80% "safe zone" that will kill you just as dead from blood loss as a direct hit to the CNS...can you be sure that you will make it to a hospital in time?

Since apparently your style teaches you to dodge bullets, moving where you need to move to escape a center mass hit, maybe so. Sounds like a lot of assumptions happening here, assumptions you are free to make...just don't teach them to other people who may view what you are stating as realistic self defense knowledge.

What is the range that most gunfights with handguns occur? Still wanna take your chances that you a) are necessarily dealing with an inexperienced gunman who will conventiently freeze before he squeezes the trigger and 2) be able to gyrate your way out of being hit by 11 or 15 rounds? WITHOUT putting rounds back AT the shooter at the same time?

A cautionary note: firearms education should not come from lyrics to songs. Just as it should not come from TV and movies. Try more reputable sources and a lot of practice with Simmunition with your police officer friends within 5 yards (and that is a real gimme in terms of distance) and you may have more respect for handguns and the ability to move out of the way of incoming rounds.

Handguns should be respected as lethal. At the same time it should be taught that you are not in an impossible situation when facing one, and not necessarily dead if you get hit and are not instantly incapacitated.

But that is not saying that you WILL not be instantly incapacitated if you get hit. But chances are you may not and you could continue the fight. To blithely dismiss the ability of even an untrained person possibly injuring and killing you with a handgun is the height of irresponsibility.

This is the classic problem with bulletin boards, folks. Remember some people rely on this stuff as coming from experts when they read it here. We need to be careful about what we post if we are not really all that knowledgeable on the subject.

spartanmachine
10th January 2002, 07:49
Absolutely , although I will agree that handguns aren't always lethal and that every shot won't be enough to incapacitate. I also know of a person who gave me a first hand account of someone aiming a gun at them and pulling the trigger only to be out of ammo and the person went into shock.
The truth is you don't know unless you experience it , the sound of a gun going off is enough to send most people screaming in terror.
You can't underestimate a gun. If a shot just grazes an artery or major organ , that can be enough to kill.

Sgathak
10th January 2002, 08:55
Well... for starters I dont have any students... I KNOW I dont know enough to teach, but honestly thats not really the point.

I dont dodge bullets or any of that crap, thats not the point either.

I dont try and absorb rounds or advocate it to others...

Song lyrics, as you quite rightly pointed out do not a self defense class make... but just like an anology, they do not need to be exactly "on the mark" to make a point :)

If you get shot but still win, you still got shot, and you obviously screwed up somewhere along the line, and even if you do survive... the victory is pyricc... whoopie :rolleyes:

What IS however the point is that the chances of dying of a gunshot wound are NOT anywhere NEAR as high as people think!

More people die from physically NON fatal wounds than from major blood loss or organ damage. Why? because they think they should!

Of COURSE guns are dangerous!!!! One word that comes to mind here is "DUH"... but knowing that guns do NOT nessesarily equal instant death in a fight is something that MUST be understood!

If your going to say "oh its a gun, this fight is over" your going to die! but if you can look at it rationally you can say "Ok... its a gun... If I dont freeze, I might still go home", well... at least you still have a chance.

Try not to put too many words in my mouth ;)

red_fists
10th January 2002, 09:02
Hi Alll.

A friend of mine is a paramedic he reckons more people die from stab wounds and deep knife cuts rather than Bullets.

So I am with Sgathak.

Guns are dangerous, but than if I get into a situation where I face a gun I will still fight the guy to the best of my ability.

Guns, Sword, Knifes, broken Bottles all have the potential to kill you.

And, yes, three times I was faced with a gun. All 3 times I walked away without catching a Bullet.
Maybe I am charmed, maybe they guys didn't know how to use a Gun.

But if i start to worry which weapon is more likely to kill me, I reckon I might as well leave MA alone and crawl down a hole..

Kit LeBlanc
10th January 2002, 15:37
Originally posted by Sgathak

Try not to put too many words in my mouth ;)

No need. Re-read your post again and try to picture it from the point of view of another person.

Then tell us how many encounters you have had with men carrying firearms, who have pulled the trigger and fired at you, and tell us how you handled it and what techniques you used to avoid being hit, or if hit, avoided incapacitation.

STILL we would be left with ANECDOTAL evidence that is far more relevant to THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION than it is to advisable tactics in the real world.

Handguns ARE far less lethal than people imagine, PROVIDED that proper mindset has been engendered and you aren't hit in an "instant kill" zone, which is NOT rare, but probably not as common as people think. Proper mindset involves proper respect for how lethal they can be, not a dismissive attitude (read your post again, and for that matter add Red Fists last post, though at least he claims he has survived three encounters with a gun...)

Common sense, coupled with a healthy respect for weapons, is all I ask. The last one was a little better.

Sgathak
10th January 2002, 16:33
Hmmm what was it I said?

Oh yeah...

"your unlikely to die if you keep your head on straight."

"we train quite a bit in footwork and body positioning"
(I know how you loath movie and song quotes, but even Mr Miyagi said "best defense, no be there")

I also said that Bullets are in fact quite small, small size makes it easy to "no be there" because the movement needed is less than for ohhhhh say a baseball bat. I did not say that they arent dangerous if they make contact. One thing you seem to have not noticed is that I have not really addressed the actual "hits" on purpose. I have actually made efforts to NOT bring up what happens if you DO get hit because the fact of the matter is, if you got hit you already messed up somewhere. If your not dead, keep moving. even if all you can move is your lungs... if your not dead, keep moving.

As to wether or not I have been shot at, yes. twice. The first time a kid I knew from school (he droppedout to be in a "gang"... so what if we lived in farm country right? LOL... he still dressed like Snoop Dogg and carried a .32) Well, I pissed him off one day calling him on his crap and he pulled that .32 I was too far away to get to his "inside safe zone" and ducked behind a wall when I realized I had a split second of a chance (kept moving)

The other time was after a Colorado Rockies game... a fight broke out in a parking lot. I tried to break it up (they were right next to my car) when one of the guys pulled a gun and told me to "shut the f*ck up"... I did, I raised my hands and kind of looked over his shoulder (not the cheesy hollywood way, just was sort of "looking past" him. When he broke his eye contact with me I did a leverage disarm. Nothing fancy... certainly nothing to brag about. Sh*t happens.

I have a healthy respect for guns, but thats what it is. RESPECT. Not fear. I know what a gun can and cannot do. I know that a gun not pointed AT me is not a threat TO me. I know that its hard to hit a moving target. I know that if I dont give up I might still go home.

red_fists
10th January 2002, 22:28
Hi Kit.

2 of those encounters came when I was helping a friend doing repossesions while his Partner was sick.

The 3rd was in a Pub.

Twice the Gun was within inches of my Body and I could disarm the Opponent without a shot being fired. In one the Gun was still on safety.

The 3rd Encounter a shot was fired, but at that time I was already crouching and moving out of the way.

In this case we called the Police to assist us.
Neither of these situations I am proud to have been in, nor would I want to do it again.

Yep, fresh underwear was called for aferwards.
And the barrel of a 38 looks like a freight train tunnel when viewed from a close Distance.

Kit LeBlanc
11th January 2002, 01:09
Sgathak,

It's more in how you said it.

But I give up. Cleary you guys know how to deal with firearms....there is nothing more I could possibly add.

red_fists
11th January 2002, 03:17
Hi Kit.

I think it is 2 things:

1.) I learned a lot of disarmament techniques, for a variety of weapons.
And once the Barrel points away from you pracitically disabled that weapon.

2.) It is mindset, atleast in my case, a Threat is a Threat and will be dealt with accordingly. No thought, just action.
Most of the time I have to ask people afterwards what I did.

Said that I don't wait until the squeezes the Trigger, I act as soon as I see the gun and if the wielder is a serious threat or not.

Yes, it takes training on both mental and phsyical side.

Also need to say that I don't fear dying.

Steve C
14th January 2002, 11:43
Just a thought about those of you who have faced guns and survived; we're not hearing much counter-evidence simply because people who tried it and weren't as lucky are dead. Which limits your ability to use internet fora, I should think.

On the original topic; maybe you choose your art based on your willingness to kill... so aikidoka tend not to, but knife-fighters will find it easier. Just a thought.

red_fists
14th January 2002, 11:51
Hi Steve.

I know a lot of "untrained" People that faced Guns and survived.

Sorry, willingness to kill has little to do with the art you choose.

Some of the more "gentle" Arts just more deadly more so than some "hard" styles.

I know that Aikido has also killing techniques in it. Atleast I was taught some moves by a Aikido friend of mine that would kill an Opponent .

Steve C
14th January 2002, 12:13
There are also a lot of people dead.

With the choice of art, what I'm talking about is intent. If you take up fighting with big hunting knives, your only offence is to cut your enemy open; if you take up a soft art, not only are you able to do non-lethal throws and locks, but it's also what you train for, and I think that's a big part of how you end up reacting in a real situation.

red_fists
14th January 2002, 12:52
Hi Steve.

Not so sure about the soft Arts. :D

My Style incorporates all the striking, grappling(Chin-na, Dim Mak) and weapons I want.
And the intent is to end the fight by all means/methods available.

As for the controlling and non-lethal throws and locks, I still say it depends on the situation and not the Art or the practicioner.

Yes, going for the non-lethal should always be the first option, but than there are times when you might need to use the lethal/deadlier stuff.
And you also need to train/be prepared for this.

But than to each one his own. :toast:

joe yang
14th January 2002, 19:11
Mr. Chech, I understand what you are saying, that all the arts have their fatal moves. Mr. Cooper, what you are saying is, as a generalization, people attracted to harder arts are more predisposed to lethal force, people attracted to softer arts are gentler in nature. Sounds like a poll/thread to me.

red_fists
15th January 2002, 00:38
Mr. Yang.

While I mainly study CMA, I also reasearch and listen to a lot of non-CMA Guys andStyles Philosophies.

One Okinawan Teacher once said.

"Karate is a life long study. Think of "your" training as a circle. Within that circle is a square whose 4 corners touch the outer ring of the circle. The square is karate.... to be a complete karate student you must study all 4 points where the circle and square meet... "
" number one spot" he said pointing to one of the points where the circle and square intersected " is punching and kicking (karate)
number 2 spot is joint locks and throws....
number 3 spot is in close knees, grabs, chokes, armlocks... ect...
number 4 is on the ground wrestling like a judo man....

Now I think this holds true for all the Arts and not just Kara-Te.
At the same time I also think that each well-rounded system should have non-lethal and lethal techniques.

Just some thoughts.

Kit LeBlanc
15th January 2002, 05:00
First, we learn how darn easy it is to defeat gun-wielding attackers. Now we are onto the "deadly" martial arts...maybe we can add "combat qi," or throws without touching people and their use in self defense next.

OK, I guess I have just a few more things to add...:look:

Sorry guys, no offense intended, but perhaps a pause. This is, hands down, one of the worst threads I have ever seen on E-Budo. Perhaps on the Internet Budo World in general.

As a police officer very familiar with use of force, firearms and firearms disarming methods, I can only PRAY that no one reads this and takes it as good or knowledgeable advice. Too much misleading fantasy is mixed in with some good stuff to make it sound just "okay" enough. The "true to life" experiences and stories related, notwithstanding.

Funny, everyone I know that has had a close encounter with a firearm, both in having them used against them and using them against others, has far less of a flippant attitude about them. Wonder why that is?

Oh well, they don't talk about dim mak, or deadly martial arts killing techniques either.

Remember this is the Internet, take all information with a VERY large grain of salt.


10-8

red_fists
15th January 2002, 05:18
Hi Kit.

My final post on here.

While I fully agree with your last Post.

I would also like to point out that I lived in a Country where People got mugged/carjacked and shot dead for as little as $2.
Some were simply shot because they could identify a mugger or car-jacker.

Maybe you would face the Gun and die without an attempt at surviving.

I nerver said it was easy to defeat a gun wielding attacker nor a glorious thing to do.

But I simply pointed out that it can be done, and that the chances of survival are higher than the general public perceives them to be.

Kit LeBlanc
15th January 2002, 06:00
Originally posted by red_fists

I would also like to point out that I lived in a Country where People got mugged/carjacked and shot dead for as little as $2.
Some were simply shot because they could identify a mugger or car-jacker.

Maybe you would face the Gun and die without an attempt at surviving.

I nerver said it was easy to defeat a gun wielding attacker nor a glorious thing to do.

But I simply pointed out that it can be done, and that the chances of survival are higher than the general public perceives them to be.

The same sorts of things happen here in the United States. Your experience with violence is not confined to your own country or personal experience. As I stated above, most people that I know who have extensive experience dealing with violence, particularly with firearms involved, are much less matter-of-fact about it than you, or Sgathak appear to be. I can only guess why.

You did not have to come out and say you thought dealing with guns was easy. Your dismissive tone implies that you view it that way. The only reasonable posts you have made, like the one quoted above, is when you have been challenged on your assertions.

Your posts have been about worst thing you can do for people who are legitimately seeking an understanding of the dynamics of a firearms to empty hand confrontation. People with little experience in martial arts and even less with actual violence, which most people on E-Budo clearly are. The matter-of-fact manner in which you discuss it is not conducive to having people believe your personal accounts, nor is it the proper way to expose others to a realistic and responsible concept of firearms disarmament. I would hope that with the experience you related, you would understand this.

I would venture that few people would willingly die at the whim of handgun wielding attacker. I most certainly wouldn't and I don't train others to give up, either. I would do what I must to survive, starting with mindset. Being a law enforcement officer I have access to very realistic training in many aspects of this type of confrontation that civilians do not have access to. A major portion of this is geared toward NOT developing unrealistic expectations of firearms, OR firearms disarmament. We are trained in force on force scenarios using simunition rounds NEVER to go down after being shot. We are also trained to view firearms as the LETHAL threat that they are.

You, and Sgathak, correctly point out that the chances of survival in facing a handgun, even after being shot, are quite high (e.g. a man in the county I work in took FIVE rounds from an officer's .45 in a shooting incident. He stopped attacking them after being sprayed by pepper spray...). Indeed I have seen law enforcement statistics showing that only 1 in 4 people shot dies. Handgun rounds are weak, even the dreaded .45. They don't kill everybody, even most, BUT THEY DO KILL, and all it takes is for someone to get in a lucky shot, or for someone to read something on E-Budo and go out and do something INCREDIBLY STUPID and die trying. Your message is much more effectively conveyed while appropriately addressing the potential lethality of handguns.

The point of my post is the hope that someone reads it and doesn't have "but Red Fists on E-Budo said it would work" as the last thing, before the BULLET, to go through his mind.

red_fists
15th January 2002, 06:29
Hi Kit.


Handgun rounds are weak, even the dreaded .45. They don't kill everybody, even most, BUT THEY DO KILL, and all it takes is for someone to get in a lucky shot, or for someone to read something on E-Budo and go out and do something INCREDIBLY STUPID and die trying. Your message is much more effectively conveyed while appropriately addressing the potential lethality of handguns.

Yes, I see your point and agree.

In closing I would like to ask the following question.
"Is a Knife or a broken Bottle LESS lethal than a Gun??"

Peace and cheers to everybody.

:wave:

joe yang
15th January 2002, 17:43
Can a gun kill you more dead?;)

Shizen
29th January 2002, 23:21
Sometimes the misuse of something like logic can be just as dangerous as misusing a weapon like a gun. Sometimes people's mouths just "go off" because they didn't know how to use it properly.
I've been hit with a few stray "logic bullets" and I'm glad they tickled more than hurt :)

I have read every post on this thread (took me several days) and I thought very deeply on the subject. It took me a few days to say all that I wanted, and it might take a long time to read it, but if you are interested, then here are -

My thoughts:

This has been such a hotly debated topic, and that is wonderful. Like many threads on ebudo, most of the interest/entertainment/information I gained from it is in the subject of human psychology and not the original subject of the thread. Watch how people hide behind semantics and logic to defend themselves. Watch how people attack eachother's credibility when making disagreements. It's a beautiful look into the psyche.

Praise aside, I would like to state my opinion, and comment on others’.
*Don't think that I was NOT including myself when I mentioned that people attack eachother's credibility and hide behind logic. I do it too!

The question was: “Could you kill a human being if needed?”

I answered yes. The question is hypothetical. I being a logical person, saw the words, “if needed” and decided that, “yes, if it were necessary, I believe I have the ability and the mental preparedness to do so.”

Unlike someone else’s use of logic - which I found ridiculous - my logical reasoning was very simple. (Sorry, Kimpatsu, I have to call you out on this too, even though others have done well enough already)

Here are the problems I found in Kimpatsu’s logic:
*note: I respect his beliefs to the fullest! It is always wrong to kill a person, but just because something is wrong doesn’t mean you can’t do it “if needed.” Just because the speed limit is 60 mph, doesn’t mean you can’t drive 80 to get a dying friend to a hospital, for example.

Kimpatsu has repeatedly brought up what he called the fallacy in either/or questions. He stated that there is always a third choice. “In other words, the moment you introduce the operand, you've committed a logical fallacy.”
That was his fallacy. Sometimes, there really are only 2 choices. The either/or is only bad logic if there actually are more than 2 choices. This line of reasoning is further ridiculous, because the original question did not contain the word “or” !!
It is hypothetical. The framing of the question sets the parameters: You either kill or you don’t. To rationalize our answers, we (meaning the general opinion of those that posted to the thread) clarified that we would only kill if our lives or the lives of those we loved were in dire jeopardy. So the question seemed to change to “kill or be killed?” when it really hadn’t.

Just as a logic lesson to our friend, Kimpatsu -
Hypothetically, let’s say that I give you 2 options:
(a) you push the spacebar on your keyboard, or
(b) you don’t push the spacebar on your keyboard.
What is the third option? Push the button halfway? A push is a push.

If you still don’t see the point, I’ll up the ante -
The choices are now:
(a) push the button and I die, or
(b) don’t push the button and you die.
*Remember it is hypothetical. Do not make me explain how such a scenario could be possible in the real world. I’m sure I and many others could do so easily.

Since you believe that it is wrong to kill another person under any circumstances, then how do you avoid killing in this scenario? There is no third option, there is no possibility of using martial arts to save yourself (unless you count harakiri)!
*note: I have heard your argument that if the situation doesn’t apply to empty-handed, one-on-one martial arts related conflict then it doesn’t belong on ebudo. That is a logical fallacy too. The question could have been posted on grandma’s sewing circle website, and it changes nothing.
And by the way, according to my definition of martial arts, using a gun IS martial arts.

Back to the scenarios to test your logic -
I would guess from your ethical beliefs, that you would rather allow yourself to die than be responsible for my death. That’s fine with me, but I always thought that allowing yourself to die is the same as suicide and suicide is the same as murder.
Just my opinion, and not really important.

That may be an easy decision for you. Given kill or die, you choose ‘die.’ No problem.

I’ll up the ante again. You are a Star Trek fan. So am I. Another hypothetical (and quite fanciful) situation (remember, for the purposes of logic testing, reality has nothing to do with line of reasoning) -
You are asleep in bed. Unbeknownst to you, a group of people has decided to leave Earth on a gigantic spaceship. The problem is, they are evil and want to kill everything on the planet once they are in orbit.
*Try hard to follow this. It is going to get very outrageous!
Here is your dilemma:
People on the spaceship are aware of your complete aversion to killing and have decided to make a very serious bet with their shipmates. The bet is that you will allow yourself to die instead of killing the people on the spaceship. They are also aware of your amazing martial arts ability and will not face you in fair combat. Using their transporter system, they beam you up into a room with no doors and no windows. The only items in the room are a light fixture on the ceiling, an audio speaker, and a button on the wall. Remember, you were pulled out of your bed while sleeping. 'Zanshin' would not have saved you.
After enough time has passed for you to wake up, come to your senses and realize you are not dreaming, a voice comes out of the speaker and tells you that you have 5 seconds to decide your fate. Your choices are that you either press the button on the wall which will cause the room to fill with toxic gas that will eventually kill you, or you do not press the button which will default to you being beamed back down to your bedroom, and the spaceship will explode killing all people on board. You are also told before the 5-second time limit starts that if you choose to press the button, members of your family will be beamed aboard and tortured. You aren’t told that they plan on killing the entire planet, but you have it in the back of your mind as a possibility (because of your great premonition skills developed in martial arts training).

There is no third choice. Push the button and you die; not only that but without you to save them, other people may die also. If you do not push the button then you will be responsible for the death of thousands, possibly millions of human beings on the gigantic spaceship. The people on the spaceship are so sure that you would rather kill yourself than all of them, that they really will back up their bet by destroying the ship.
What do you do? It seems like no matter what you do, many people will die. The main difference is that it is either you or them. No negotiation, no submission techniques. You either live or you die. There is the “or operand” - where is the third choice?

I know this is so irrational that you would rather dismiss it as fantasy instead of dealing with your own beliefs. How about a simpler example:

You are in a fight to the death (a la Mad Max and the Thunderdome) in a locked cage. “Two men enter - one man leaves” Let’s say it’s you and me in the cage. I would definitely try my hardest to kill you given the situation. I wouldn’t like it, but I want to go home to my family.
During the fight (which is one-on-one, empty-handed just the way you like it) You successfully counter all of my attacks without killing me. You even knock me out. Eventually I wake up and continue to fight, so you break my arms, but still don’t kill me. Since I am determined to live and not to die (I don’t know that you are trying not to kill me after all. Even if you told me so, I wouldn’t believe you), I will continue to come after you - broken arms and all - kicking and biting. You manage to break both my legs, and my jaw (which is potentially lethal, but luckily for you (??) doesn’t kill me). I am unable to fight, and am so badly hurt that I go into a coma. I cannot continue to fight you, but since I am not dead, you are not let out of the cage. The rules call for a fight to the death. Again, if you do not kill me, then by default you are committing suicide because there is no way to live more than a week in the cage without food and water.

I will still assume that you prefer suicide to murder, so a simple substitution might change your mind. What if it was your mother in the cage? What if the person that loses the fight has their entire family hunted and murdered?

I am not trying to change your beliefs. I also believe that it is wrong to kill under any circumstances. All I want to do is help you learn logic. In my opinion, a logical, rationally-thinking person would rather do whatever is necessary (including murder) if it means saving their own life and the lives of those they love. It is called killing in self defense, and is viewed as acceptable by 99.99999999999% (without exaggeration) of ALL organisms on this planet!

It is a tremendous logical fallacy to believe that there is no situation on Earth that contains only 2 choices - live or die / kill or be killed. Everyday of our lives we are faced with this choice. If you are alive, then that means that you eat. It follows that if you eat then some other living thing had to sacrifice its life in order for you to eat it. You can’t survive eating dirt. Of course you do not eat other human beings, but life is life regardless of species. Buddhists believe that all life is sacred and killing an insect is still bad karma. However, Buddha also says that killing is wrong, but if a warrior is sent into battle, then he has the duty to kill his enemies to punish them for their evil.

Remember Star Trek? “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” If killing one man prevents that man from killing a hundred, then why allow him to live? So the blood isn't on your hands? That is the exact opposite of what it means to be a warrior!

All I want is for people to think realistically. Even my fanciful examples will help if you look at the basic principles behind them. Realistically, life on Earth follows this pattern (whether you are a human being, an ant, or algae):
Kill-Eat-Mate-Repeat. There is no way around it except suicide by default. You must kill in order to eat (if you eat food from an organism that someone else has killed, you are still responsible for the death by providing the necessity), you must eat in order to live long enough to procreate, even if you never have sex, you need to eat so that the cells in your body can reproduce or else you die. You repeat the pattern to live, and after you eventually die, your offspring (if any) will repeat the pattern.

I have no problem with you rather choosing your own death over the death of another - very noble if you think it is for the best. Please don’t preach that others should never resort to deadly force in a dangerous situation, though. I don’t care if you are such a master of martial arts that you could end any conflict with minimum injury. If it came down to my grandma trying to save her life from an attacker, I bet all of my external genitalia (I’m trying to be polite) that she would try her best to stab the poor bastard in the throat with her knitting needle if that was the only thing she could think of. She has no desire to kill, no combat training (that I know of), but if you told her that she should not try to stab someone in the throat when her life is in danger, then she would probably laugh very hard and say something like, “What a cute young man! Would you like some candy?”

I would like to thank Dainippon99 (Bobby David), Son of Thunder (Charles Hackney), Sgathak( J. Robbins) and many others for posts that came from intelligent minds and well-meaning hearts. I draw inspiration from your warrior spirit!
I would also like to thank Tony Kehoe for his commitment to his beliefs, and his courage for defending them, as well as providing many of us with a good laugh at his misuse of logic. I’m sure you mean well, Tony, but from all of your posts that I’ve read, I can’t believe you have any real experience in any kind of life-threatening situation.

I think it’s time to put this thread to rest. All ways of discussing it have been exhausted (It’s only a yes or no question anyway!) The poll should stay open, so we get a good statistical representation of the ebudo population.


Peace, Love, and Happiness -
Stay safe
Protect those that you love
Keep training
Keep going


:wave:

Kimpatsu
30th January 2002, 02:10
Here we go again...

Sometimes, there really are only 2 choices.
Rubbish; there's always a third option. You're just not looking hard enough.

Hypothetically, let’s say that I give you 2 options:
(a) you push the spacebar on your keyboard, or
(b) you don’t push the spacebar on your keyboard.
What is the third option?
Push another key.
You can up the ante if you like, but I'll still push another key. Remember: Even James T. Kirk didn't believe in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Get it now?
(Probably not, which is why this thread is never going to be archived.)

Kyukage
30th January 2002, 02:28
by definition, that would fall under "b) don't push the space bar."

red_fists
30th January 2002, 02:37
3rd Option:
Disable "Spacekey"

Markaso
30th January 2002, 05:33
Can you kill ??? What a question.

I think the true question should be is can you not kill?

A great teacher once told me that "I could teach you to kill someone in a very short time but it will take years of practice to learn how not to kill".

If you are there (in the Dojo) to learn how to kill and fight, you are there for all of the wrong reasons.

It is all too easy to let your anger take over.

Shizen
30th January 2002, 21:46
Could I kill? I think that I could if I had to. I would rather not. Just thinking / imagining that I would be able to is one thing, as I have never been in situations that dire. I have seen other people die in front of me; I have had to use martial arts to save my skin on a few occasions, but thankfully, I have always been able to keep myself safe without having to take a life (human, anyway. You mosquitos know who you are :p )

Trying to answer questions like these are a good way for us to look inside ourselves. Sure it is all mainly speculation, but it does increase our level of preparedness, if even by a small amount.

Now that I got the seriousness out of the way, on to the fun!

It has become a miniature hobby of mine to try to correct Kimpatsu's (mis)use of logic. He is my "oddity of the week" that I am studying for purposes of psychological understanding. Please forgive that I go off topic in order to help our friend, Tony Kehoe. ;)

The following is from an email I just sent him. It is heavily edited to cut out things like profanity and unneeded information. Enjoy!

----------------------------------------------

Hi, this is Shizen from e-budo.com

You may remember me as one of many that continuously call you on your $#!@.

". . . call you on your $#!@." - what a great metaphor! That is exactly what it seems like I'm doing. Reading your posts is like watching a dog crap all over my house, and when I push his nose in to make him smell his own [feces] and say, "bad dog!" the dog points at the cat and says that it has bad grooming habits.

I'm emailing you for two reasons.

1) to avoid the 2000 character per p.m. limit in case this exceeds that (It's a pain in the @$$ to keep putting "to be continued" after every few paragraphs.

2) because I don't want to post too many of my personal feelings against you (not really against you - to avoid your beloved, "ad hominem" catch phrase), but against your insistence on posting replies and rebuttals that depend so heavily on what you think is good logic, but really isn't.

Re: my 4-part private message - I apologize for being so harsh, but come on man. You can't possibly really believe that everything you say is true or makes sense! The fact that you disagree with nearly everyone and say that they have fallacies in their logic is the epitome of hypocrisy! I just can't believe what I see. I am very impressed that you don't back down though. That shows a stubbornness to accept the truth that borders on insanity.

Before I continue to harass you for your misdeeds, I would like to collect some information about you, so I can get a better perspective on "the man behind the mess."

It is your choice of course to not share this information with me, but I would appreciate knowing what I'm up against here.

The picture I have of you so far is like this. [. . .]edited for brevity[. . .]
. . .
- learned everything he knows about logic from a website, namely, http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

something interesting I noticed while looking over that site (it's a good reference tool, but not to be substituted for formal training in the proper use of logic for debate, however).

"... Please feel free to download the entire text [. . .] PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO USE, ABUSE AND REPRODUCE THIS DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY YOU WISH provided (a) . . ." [emphasis mine]

Is that line what you use to justify your blatant mistakes in trying to use logic?

[. . .]
As you can see, I really don't know much about you at all. I would appreciate if you could clear some things up for me. Most of the above I have no problem with. Where you live, your occupation, hobbies, etc. are your own deal.

I really just can't understand you. I have taken to study your mentality as a hobby because it fascinates me so much. That may be pretty lame. I admit, I should just ignore you and move on, but wow, you are a piece of work!

I just read your last post. This looks like the beginning of the end. I called you out so hard and your defense was so weak!

Originally posted by Kimpatsu:

"Here we go again...

quote:

Sometimes, there really are only 2 choices.

Rubbish; there's always a third option. You're just not looking hard enough.

quote:

Hypothetically, let’’s say that I give you 2 options:

quote:

(a) you push the spacebar on your keyboard, or

quote:

(b) you don’’t push the spacebar on your keyboard.

quote:

What is the third option?

Push another key. You can up the ante if you like, but I'll still push another key. Remember: Even James T. Kirk didn't believe in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Get it now? (Probably not, which is why this thread is never going to be archived.) "

What a delicious victory for me! If this were a real fight, what you just said would be the equivalent of cutting of your own foot so you could throw it at me.

Where do you get the idea that no situation could ever be limited to 2 choices? You have never explained how you came to that conclusion. If it was from reading, "two choices are given when in fact there are three options" from the logic website, then you are a complete buffoon! Please tell me you came to that conclusion some other way.

Ever heard of binary code? If you tried to program a computer using your brand of logic, the machine would probably explode!

"rubbish," he says . . . wow, this is just too easy.

I'm feeling a little altruistic, so I'll try to help you out. In the above line, "two choices are given when in fact there are three options," the "in fact there are three options" IS NOT FACT, if it were than it would be impossible for a situation to have four choices. If you really knew logic, then you would recognize the logical operator, "when" this sets the parameters. If I say, "Hypothetically, I give you two options . . ." THEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. I just told you at the outset that it is the case. It is a hypothetical situation, so no amount of experience from real life that tells you that there USUALLY are more than 2 options will make any difference. It's like if you were to play chess, and start moving your knight as if it were a queen. The rules of the game state that it is illegal to do so no matter how easy it is to actually pick up the knight and move it 6 squares away in one turn.

Are you getting any of this so far? I hope you are. [ . . .]

"Push another key," he says . . . hurray logic prevails! :cool:

Kyukage chimes in, "by definition, that would fall under "b) don't push the space bar.""

How can you refute that?

red_fists, [. . .] " 3rd Option: Disable "Spacekey"

How does this change whether or not the spacebar is pushed? In my original, simple scenario, pushing or not pushing the space bar had no effect whatsoever, so there is nothing to "disable."

It just keeps getting better!

"You can up the ante if you like, but I'll still push another key. "

When I upped the ante the second time, I (hypothetically remember) put you in a room with the following features and nothing else of interest: ". . . a room with no doors and no windows. The ONLY items in the room are a light fixture on the ceiling, an audio speaker, and A button on the wall. "

It's my hypothetical situation. I make the rules. There is only one button to push. What other button do you push in that situation? Your belly button? It does not change the fact that there is an effect from pushing the button, there is an effect from not pushing the button, and no amount of logic will make it possible for neither effect to occur.

I recommend you go back to that website, or better yet, find a good book and a teacher and review the following logic-related terms: "if/then/else," "or," "and," "while," "when," etc.

"Remember: Even James T. Kirk didn't believe in the Kobayashi Maru scenario. Get it now? "

No. I'm sorry. I don't get it. [ . . .] I'm not familiar with the "Kobayashi Maru scenario." Please explain.

[ . . .]edited for privacy[. . .]

See how easy it was for me to totally dismantle any attempt you had at sounding intelligent? You did most of the work yourself. My aikido sensei would be proud. :smilejapa

[. . .]I don't fight fair, that is for sure, but I do have some compassion and honor.

Since I have a lot of free time on my hands, I think I will amuse myself (and get some good debate practice) by selecting a few other choice postings of yours and dismantle them as well. In case I get nasty, I'll put my rantings in the No Holds Bar and Grill.

Until our swords cross again - Have a nice day!

[. . .]

:toast:

Kimpatsu
30th January 2002, 22:18
If you think this is victory, you've got a strange notion of what victory is.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario was a "no-win" scenario at Starfleet Academy. Kirk reprogrammed the computer to offer himself a third, get-out option. I'd do the same.
Life is not binary code. Or are you a binar?
Try thinking out of the box.

Markaso
1st February 2002, 00:12
Shizen -

I understand how you feel completly. Mr. Kehoe has been a personal friend of mine for years and I still have trouble understanding his logic at times. But and I do mean BUT I think no I know you went a bit far in your last post.

I must say, although it pains me GREATLY:cry: , I do agree with Mr. Kehoe. there is always another choice

Kimpatsu
1st February 2002, 01:06
For those not in the know, having lost the argument on the merits, Shizen felt compelled to e-mail me privately with a torrent of abuse involving many of the swear words that are banned on this forum proper, and it is to these four private e-mails that Markaso is referring.
Thanks for the backhanded support, Mark. I swear you're a dead man when we next meet... :D

Markaso
1st February 2002, 04:49
Tony -

I see you are still being a bit cryptic ............. or I am stll having a hard time reading behind the lines. Just what did you mean when you said

"I swear you're a dead man when we next meet... "??

I still think that you have another choice.


But your welcome anyway.

Kimpatsu
1st February 2002, 06:40
Mark,
Why are you discussing our telephone calls on e-budo? Do you know the difference between a phone and the internet? :D
The message I left on your answering machine was my poor interpretation of a mafia hit man. "Youse dead next time we meet, ya dirty rat!"
I can write it better than I can say it. I'm not from New Jersey, after all.
Now, what's cryptic about that?
See ya.:wave:

Markaso
1st February 2002, 08:02
Tony -

I might not be able to read between the lines but you must be getting old if you couldn't at least figure out that I was only talking about what you had written above.

What's the word for white hair?:confused: that should be your new nom de guerre:)

Hope we can share one :beer: soon


Cheers:D

Kimpatsu
1st February 2002, 15:34
White hair is "shiraga".
But I still think you were trading on confidential information.
Call you tomorrow (privately).

Shizen
3rd February 2002, 21:30
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
wow
HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAA!
HAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
oh dear
HAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!

HA HA HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHA!

HA HA
snif
HAHAHAHAHA . . . .

Markaso
8th February 2002, 17:11
Shizen.....

I almost laughed too....as I said almost. I think that you were not the only one to do so. But I think that you did not really understand what went on so your only recourse was to laugh or that was all you could come up with. I always think that laughter is the best of medicine....Oh I think I just came up with another option:) although it may be old.


Options are infinite it is only us who try to regulate the infinite.

As to the question can you kill?? Still searching.

unsound000
18th February 2002, 11:31
Historically speaking, samurai were soldiers. They prepared to die for their lords in battle and they daily strove in learn killing techniques. They carried swords, the most advanced weapon of the day much like we might carry guns. This is the foundation of Japanese martial arts.
These posts remind me of something in my dojo. There was a man who trained for a long time and received some level above shodan. I'm not sure what. He eventually came to believe like some on this post that killing was wrong no matter what. He resolved never to kill not even in self defense. At a recent ceremony, my teacher tied his obe symbolizing his decision never to use the art lest someone be hurt or killed. He is much like a monk in some ways. I must say that I have the greatest respect for that.
I don't think I can do the arts Tony's way without an intent to do harm. The intent to do harm is a part of the thing. I have a feeling the ideal that we should strive for as human beings is to tie the obe, as crazy as it sounds.

Michael Plank
1st March 2002, 03:13
Wow, given all of the interesting points on this thread, there is no way that I can write all of the thoughts that I've had reading, and you wouldn't want to read them anyhow, so I'll just go back to answering the original question. As all of us do, I hope that I never have to find out whether I can kill. I disagree with anyone who says that a killing attitude is necessary to the martial arts (someone else brought up Aikido...and really, I can't think of any martial arts that actually RECOMMEND killing as anything but a last resort). That's not the question, though. I am opposed to violence, war, and the death penalty. I guess I'm pretty idealistic, eh? But I recognize that all of these things can become necessary, or at least inevitable. Rationally, I cannot condone violence (though, as ever, I am proven the hypocrite because I calmly eat my fellow animals all the time...). I am further proven the hypocrite because I do believe that, given a sufficiently enraging or dangerous situation I could kill. If I came across a rape in progress, I sincerely believe that I would do everything in my power to kill the rapist on the spot. On the other hand, if I failed to kill the rapist and instead disabled him, I feel that I would not have the heart (I guess "guts" is a better word than "heart"?) to "finish" him, no matter how much I wanted to. So, I hope that I will never know, but I feel that I could kill in the heat of the moment (heh, nobody's discipline is perfect, eh?), but I could never kill someone calmly, or if I'd had time to reflect after my initial anger. I guess I should try to give some idea of what kind of offence someone would have to commit to get me that riled up (in my own defence, I've never hit my little brother, even when he gave me ample reason), but I don't know if I can give y'all a specific "line" that would have to be crossed...it'd have to be bad (rape, murder, lynch-mob, etc...)

Mike Plank

Michael Plank
1st March 2002, 03:58
Shizen, I know how you feel when someone just WON'T acknowledge your flawless argument, it happens to me all the time. You gotta know when to call it quits, though. Losing your temper and getting sore is just not that healthy, believe me, I know. Also, I'm afraid that I have to side with our friend Kimpatsu on this one. While your hypothetical model is logically flawless, I can come up with another such:

You have only one option. You must do something (I hope that it's painfully obvious that "something" consists of such things as breathing, going into a coma, dying, sitting on your hands, and taking over the world).

This model is logically flawless, and it has just as much bearing on reality as your model does. As Kimpatsu said, you're putting a construct on the infinite. By your model of only two choices (I assume: kill or not kill, to leave the spacekey aside for now), it would be the same to break the attacker's arm clean off and beat him bloody with it or to take him out for a beer. Logically, these are both "not kill", but in terms of reality, it doesn't make sense to group them together. There are any number of choices, even though "logically" they fall into "kill/don't kill." Since we've already referenced Star Trek, I am not ashamed to do so again:

"Logic...logic, [Shizen], is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."--Spock

I hope that this post is in some way meaningful...

Mike Plank

Ron Rompen
1st March 2002, 16:05
Although I enjoyed the debate, I found myself wondering about the responses. Basically, 80%+ of us agreed that we would kill someone 'if we could get away with it' (thats what the socially acceptable and legally acceptable boils down to).

But what if that WASN'T the case? What if you knew you were going to be caught and punished.....lengthy jail term, possibly life inprisonment or execution? Would you still be able and willing to kill another human being if YOU felt it was necessary?

I know my answer, and it hasn't changed. But I'd like to hear someone elses opinion.


:karatekid

Michael Plank
1st March 2002, 17:15
I may have to expand on this later, in order to defend my position or clarify it, but if I ever (god forbid) killed someone, I feel like I would be so caught up in the moment that I wouldn't consider what society would think of me. If someone broke into my house and I thought that were a danger to me or my family, I'd probably not stop to think about the legal consequences of killing them(if killing them was "necessary")(the legal consequences, contrary to what you might expect, can be daunting). If I was sure enough that someone needed to die that I could kill them calmly, then that would really be something and I would kill them, also, regardless of society's reaction. I really extra doubt that I'd find myself in the second position... Hmm, there you go, I guess...

Mike Plank

Jeff Cook
1st March 2002, 17:32
For some reason I don't think societal, ethical and legal concerns will be considered by anybody in the midst of a life-or-death struggle.

Humans are violent animals at our most basic, animalistic level. Everybody has the capacity to kill, in spite of the over-intellectualization of the original question.

Another thing I can't get over is the outrage at the beginning of this thread by the budo folks preaching to the "killers" on this forum that learning martial arts is not about learning how to kill.

Huh?

Martial arts is not budo - martial ways!

I don't want this to degenerate into an argument about semantics; I just wanted to point out that different people define these terms differently, and I especially wanted to point out that folks who learn military/martial arts, which include killing techniques, don't usually want to kill - they just want to be prepared to kill quickly and efficiently if it becomes necessary.

Police officers and military personnel practice marksmanship. Shooting with a firearm is deadly force. We train in it all of the time. That doesn't mean that we want to shoot somebody; it only means that we are preparing to do so, so our training will kick in under extreme stress if killing has to be done.

But we also (as military, LE, and martial artists [as opposed to budo practitioners]) train in non-lethal techniques, allowing intent and circumstances to guide us toward an appropriate response short of killing if at all possible.

So, are we prepared to kill? We train for that eventuality, but we can only know if we are prepared if we are put in the position of actually killing someone. One must have confidence in their training if they have any hope of surviving.

Hopefully most will not find out.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Ron Rompen
1st March 2002, 17:47
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Cook
Another thing I can't get over is the outrage at the beginning of this thread by the budo folks preaching to the "killers" on this forum that learning martial arts is not about learning how to kill.

Huh?

Martial arts is not budo - martial ways!

I don't want this to degenerate into an argument about semantics; I just wanted to point out that different people define these terms differently, and I especially wanted to point out that folks who learn military/martial arts, which include killing techniques, don't usually want to kill - they just want to be prepared to kill quickly and efficiently if it becomes necessary.


The above brings a quote to mind:

'The sword is a weapon for killing.
The art of the sword is the art of killing.
No matter what fancy words you use,
Or what titles you give it,
This is the only truth.'

I agree wholeheartedly that the MA's are intended (originally at least) to teach a person to disable/kill quickly and efficiently. No matter what we may say about our styles, what our religious beliefs are, or who our sensei is, the 'truth' does not change.

What DOES change is the intent of the practitioner....you may learn a killing art, and never EVER use it to kill. Does that make it any less deadly?

(Looks like I opened up a can of worms with this one)

Shizen
1st March 2002, 18:17
I'm glad that my post is getting some responses. I also agree that it was wrong because I went off topic, but I must remind everyone that my only intention was to point out and condemn hipocracy.

Could I kill another man's credibility if I believed his hipocracy endangered the life of logic?

- certainly, and I'd do it again, and I wouldn't feel all that bad about it. As far as taking another man's life . . . I believe that if someone attacks me with intent to do serious harm, then that person has given up their right to live. Moreover, I would consider it a favor to society to remove a dangerous element from their lives. It is similar reasoning to remove a large sharp object from a roadway, so a poor, unsuspecting driver doesn't wreck their car on it. If in the moment between life and death I found a way to accomplish the same goal without taking life, then I would use that way. I certainly hope that if the time comes, I won't spend much time making my desision.

RE: my previous post, where all I could do was laugh. I appologize for that too, it was pretty pointless. I was hoping at least that it would be understood why I had to laugh. Here are the things I found funny:

"If you think this is victory, you've got a strange notion of what victory is. "

- my notion of victory is to do what I intended to do. I intended to point out that despite all the times that Mr. Kehoe claimed that he was using good logic while others were not, that he in fact was using bad logic, thus making him a hipocrite. I believe I accomplished this nicely. (actually not very 'nicely' it was more like overkill. I believe in karma, so I'm waiting for someone to barrage me with insults for being hipocritical about something. It could happen).

"Life is not binary code. Or are you a binar? "

- this is just funny because it doesn't address any point I was trying to make. ah well.

"Try thinking out of the box."

- if there is no box, then I'm not going to put myself in one, but if the question is to find an animal that will fit in a standard sized matchbox, then I'm going to avoid the elephants.

If that last statement doesn't make sense, then try to reconsider why, "Push another key." is rediculous according to the parameters of the question asked.

"For those not in the know, having lost the argument on the merits, Shizen felt compelled to e-mail me privately with a torrent of abuse involving many of the swear words that are banned on this forum proper, and it is to these four private e-mails that Markaso is referring. . ." and then to Markaso, "Why are you discussing our telephone calls on e-budo? Do you know the difference between a phone and the internet? "

- this really had me laughing hard. What could be gained from this besides trying to make me seem like a villian? I can be nasty some times, sure. What's your point? Is that a logical fallacy too? ". . . lost the argument on the merits, . . ." Wow, what argument are you referring to? What merits? I didn't understand what that statement meant, I was so confused, all I could do was laugh. By the way, saying that I emailed you privately with swear words instead of posting profanity on the forum only shows that I follow the rules of this bulletin board. I don't see how that is supposed to make me look bad. I then really enjoyed it when you complained that Markaso was discussing a private conversation in his post, after you had mentioned my private conversation with you on your post. Have I been spelling the word, 'hipocracy' correctly? I hope so. That you shared my private message with your friend is fine. I don't care who reads it. I only sent it privately because of the high profanity content.

Do you understand now why I had to laugh?

I'm a thread drift hipocrite myself. I hate it when people stray off-topic. You all have permission to laugh at me.

It's okay, Tony, I still love and respect you.

:toast:

Casey
21st March 2002, 01:29
Perhaps. If someone killed/maimed/raped my family members, yes I would. I would hunt them down, and kill them. Despite my age, I could. I wasn't raised to cower in the shadow of cops.
Leagally, yes I would kill someone if their crime was bad enough. But like I said, when it's my family, it's my problem, law or no law.
I'm sure that sounds like an empty threat (I'm not that much of a writer) but trust me, I would.
That's all from me for now, I'm sure you're tired of listening to me brag:D

Semper Fi,

C. Eskridge

KuzuryuGenin
2nd April 2002, 03:25
If it's me or my assailant, I would prefer to kill rather than be killed. Provided that is the only option left. I would hope to think that someone who had the misfortune of tangling with me would end up with something broken(arm, leg, jaw). Killing them would be my last resort...Lou DeGraff

FreeBlade
2nd August 2002, 23:28
HONOR ...SPIRIT...COURAGE...FRIENDS...

HI...

I AM FROM BRAZIL , SO...SORRY MY POOR ENGLISH!

HONOR - YOU HAVE A NAME TO PROTECT.
SPIRIT - THE REAL TRAINNING
COURAGE - STAND UP AND HAVE A CLEAN FIGHT
FRIENDS - THE BEST PART OF BUDO

BUSHIDO IN PORTUGUESE MEANS " THE WARRIOR'S HIGHWAY ".

I TRAINNIG HARD AS POSSIBLE...IN THE LIMIT OF BODY.
NEVER THINK TO KILL A PEOPLE , SO ,AM I WRONG???

I DON'T THINK SO...

ART IS PURE.
SWORD MAKE PEOPLE LIVE...

EVERY "GOOD" MARTIAL ART STUDENT HAVE A GREAT POWER.

Boris Arsoyev
12th August 2002, 01:48
I think socially it's impossible to kill people, it's only possible in the state of hostility or conflict like world wars.

Óscar Recio
12th August 2002, 09:38
Hi,
Isnīt easy to answer a question if you havenīt experienced really a situation that involves another person life...when you are dealing really with anotherīs life...well...isnīt easy. I was in a situation like that once in my life, the first time that i needed to use my MA. The first time a canīt understood what happened and i can barely remember myself crying histerically, canīt sleep all night in my bedroom and my father trying to let me talk about it, my father was a Military Officer for 25 years. I explained how i felt just to have broken a knee and nearly the neck the assaulter. How when i saw his knife and his movement everything happened in a blur...probably most of you will think thatīs nosense to explain this here. A year after was assaulted again...again a thug with a knife...again everything a blur...broken wrist, probably a few ribs and his jaw severe bruised...the worst part comes now...i slept so nicely and quietly as never done it before.
Iīve been robbered many times...but money donīt pay your scars, is what i tell my students at the Dojo, isnīt easy to addmit that your money go away in otherīs hands but...money isnīt life. But if the assaulter donīt want only your moeny...well...thatīs what happened to me.
When i remember both situations...well. First time was terrible...but worst the second time...when you felt that everything was "right". Isnīt an experience easy to understand...really. I talked with a few Army officers, friends of my father, about my feelings. They shared experiences and feelings about similar situations. The first time i havenīt broke the neck of my assaulter īcos my mind decided to donīt do it. I know that his life was in my hands...was terrible to understand something like this. It had changed me a lot. Seriously. Many years have passed since those days...hope that i wont be in a situation to choose again.
Probably i can kill...but isnīt easy.
Respectfully,
Óscar Recio

Kimpatsu
12th August 2002, 16:30
Fusatsukatsujin (•sŽEŠˆ?l); Thou shalt not kill. Overrides all other imperitives. What's the difficulty?

Óscar Recio
12th August 2002, 16:46
Yes, of course.
"Thou shalt not kill" is everything. I understand what you say...sometimes, unfortunately, you must choose.
Conncerning this subject i adress everybody to Takamura sensei words about it:
"(...) a pacifist can act, or kill, in the blink of an eye,but at the moment of "killing" or destroying the oponente, he chooses to donīt do it"
Peace itīs the driving goal...to prepare for peace isnīt preparing for war but sometimes "isnīt easy"
Sincerely,
Óscar :smilejapa

Boris Arsoyev
21st May 2004, 07:27
If I was Bush, I would fire all the Generals in Iraq.

Markaso
21st May 2004, 16:08
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
It's a little lonely out here :cry:



And you should be lonely! I would like to say something positive so I will. You shouldn't be paranoid, no one positively likes you any way ..... so get over it ;) :toast:

Zaphiel
21st May 2004, 17:51
Originally posted by Óscar Recio
Yes, of course.
"Thou shalt not kill" is everything

you took this out of the bible ,didn't you?
...if not don't bother to read what i'm writing:
In another part of the bible it says:
If you know someone wants to kill you stand up to him and kill him first....
however I'm not really sure about me being able to kill someone
(I've even problems killing animals:D )......
however it depends on the situation....

felix

JGApprentice
25th May 2004, 09:01
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I just took the poll, and it seems that I'm the only one to answer, "No." It's a little lonely out here :cry:


Nah, currently 103 to 18 poll count is not surprising. It just reaffirms one's beliefs on how many "sane" maniacs are out there. Why, we see them when we drive our car. :p

Let see, if I am the jackhole in question and the opponent is the decent person, hopefully I'll have enough sense in me to let him/her finish me off. If the guy is criminal and wants to harm my family, then I'll have no guilt in my conscious trying to "release" him. Otherwise, if the dude just wants to kill me, whoever survives, I hope at least one of us will harbor the guilt. As for the actual man slaughter part, that's a different story. Guns would be easier. :D

So I voted no.

Soulend
30th June 2004, 06:53
Originally posted by Boris Arsoyev
If I was Bush, I would fire all the Generals in Iraq.

And why is that, Mr. Arsoyev?

Boris Arsoyev
30th June 2004, 08:39
Hello, Mr. Soulend. I think that USA Army needs Generals, who are able to deal with the situation that the Army faces today in Iraq. US has Generals in Iraq, who I think are unable to deal with what the US and the whole world faces today in the Midle East and in othr parts of the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these Generals are not good Generals, what I'm trying to say is that we (USA) need Generals and commanders who are of Midle Eastern heritage or from somewhere around that part of the globe. I know that US fought many wars but war against terror is a whole new and different ball game. Only the righteus and men of faith will endup standing on the battlefield, with their heads on their shoulders and full of hope.
I hope that I did not offend anyone. God Bless you all.

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. Ecclesiastes 9:4

MarkF
1st July 2004, 11:06
...Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these Generals are not good Generals, what I'm trying to say is that we (USA) need Generals and commanders who are of Midle Eastern heritage or from somewhere around that part of the globe.

I think that is supposed to be the point, isn't it? IOW, Iragi generals handling Iraq.

As to Bush firing generals, I'd probably put that just the opposite, with a few [generals] on trial with Bush.

On posting your problems posting your near misses here, that may be a good idea not posting them here. There is a CQC forum for that, but it isn't out of the question. I think the idea of this forum and this thread is to say what is in your heart and soul instead of what actually happened. But sometimes explanations are necessary.


Mark

Boris Arsoyev
1st July 2004, 12:34
I see your point Mark.;)

George Kohler
1st July 2004, 16:43
Originally posted by Boris Arsoyev
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these Generals are not good Generals, what I'm trying to say is that we (USA) need Generals and commanders who are of Midle Eastern heritage or from somewhere around that part of the globe.

We do.

The Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM) is General John Abizaid, who is Lebanese.

Boris Arsoyev
2nd July 2004, 07:16
I agree George, General John Abizaid is probably the best candidate for the job but from what I read in the in the article in the link I've providet, I think it's still to early to judge whether he is or he isn't. Keep in mind that terrorists don't fight on an open field, they plant roadside bombs, hijack and abduct.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/freedberg.htm

George Kohler
2nd July 2004, 17:24
Hi Boris,

I wasn't stating that Gen Abizaid is the best canidate, even though that is what I actually think (I am biased since Gen Abizaid and I are both from 1st Ranger Battalion).

I was just verifying that we already had a General with Middle East heritage.

Boris Arsoyev
3rd July 2004, 10:46
Originally posted by George Kohler
Hi Boris,

I wasn't stating that Gen Abizaid is the best canidate, even though that is what I actually think (I am biased since Gen Abizaid and I are both from 1st Ranger Battalion).

I was just verifying that we already had a General with Middle East heritage.

I see, George.
I understand your point .
Are you in the army?

Kawakami Gensai
3rd July 2004, 18:23
Speaking in a figurative sense, I have killed two people. It's scary...I had no feeling about it at all, no remorse, regret, or anything. It was like that for at least a year before I started having flashbacks about it, and then I slipped into pretty bad depression that lasted for years and resulted in self-injury, anxiety attacks, and, as a result of those, insomnia. Things are getting better now, I suppose, but I am still struggling severely with this. Everyone was right in saying it will come back to haunt you. I cannot describe in any words the agony that is the result of staining your hands with blood.

Kawakami Gensai
3rd July 2004, 18:34
Killing with malice is immoral, regardless of what anyone says. There are times when killing is necessary, and there are times when it is absolutely unnecessary. It is up to the person to decide when these moments are, but there is no guarantee that what they choose is what is right.

George Kohler
4th July 2004, 14:36
Originally posted by Boris Arsoyev
I see, George.
I understand your point .
Are you in the army?

No, I got out in December 1998.

Jeff Larsen
4th July 2004, 14:50
Hi,

Could I do it? If the other person had motive, means and opportunity, AND that I thought that MY LIFE OR MY FAMILY'S LIFE were in jeopardy, I would not hesitate.

Jeff


Originally posted by John Lindsey
Can you kill a fellow human being? If faced with a dire situation in which it would be socially (and legally) acceptable to defend yourself by killing your opponent, could you do it?

Jeff Cook
4th July 2004, 15:18
Matt, just curious. How does one "figuratively" kill two people?

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Kawakami Gensai
4th July 2004, 19:28
Heh, not the best choice of words, I suppose. What I meant is I knew two people who committed suicide, those of which I could have easily saved but decide to remain nonchalant about it. I let them kill themselves, and had no remorse for a long time. For that, I suffer. By figuratively that's what I meant.

Jeff Cook
4th July 2004, 21:39
Roger that, Matt.

For your sake, please remember that suicide is the ultimate selfish act. Anyone who is determined to do it will do it, no matter what you do or don't do about it.

You are suffering for an act you had no responsibility for, and no control of.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Kawakami Gensai
6th July 2004, 03:34
That's what I would like to think, but...that wasn't the case. I COULD have stopped them...and I am positive of that. The reason I decided not to tell them the truth that would have eliminated their desires for suicide is because at that point I did not care about anyone except myself. I've done so many things I am regretful for, but I'm starting to move on.

bruceb
15th July 2004, 12:28
Originally posted by Kawakami Gensai
Speaking in a figurative sense, I have killed two people. It's scary...I had no feeling about it at all, no remorse, regret, or anything. It was like that for at least a year before I started having flashbacks about it, and then I slipped into pretty bad depression that lasted for years and resulted in self-injury, anxiety attacks, and, as a result of those, insomnia. Things are getting better now, I suppose, but I am still struggling severely with this. Everyone was right in saying it will come back to haunt you. I cannot describe in any words the agony that is the result of staining your hands with blood.

Yeah, this is the reality of owning up to killing .. if you have any type of consciousness or morality.

The depression is the reality that you will die, everyone you know will die, and there is nothing you can do about it. Some people can not come to grips with such a harsh moral decision of killing, and the depression of the minds turmoil moves into the physical body creating depression, but if you are able to come to grips with it, it will pass into another phase of conscious resolution that will allow you to get over it, and move on.

Will it really go away?

No ... you will never really get over it, but those of moral introspection will move on, while the immoral will continue to seek the thrill of killing to satisfy their craving for immoral satisfaction. Hence the danger of falling in love with killing ... but that is not the subject of Can You Kill .. is it? ( well I hope it is not.)

We all kill something in the continued existence of our human shell, but some people don't ever get a clue what the existence of the human body is in terms of killing other living creatures for survival, verses indiscriminate killing .. which is what I suppose this threat is about in some ways.

Can you kill a human being? Any human being? Probably not, but then again, the specific morality is not in question, it is simply the fact of ... can ... you ... kill? Yeah, anyone CAN kill, but the choice.... can you accept the choice to kill?

Get over it ... we all must kill something to survive, and continue the existence of the human shell. What must be realized that the need to kill is different from the choice to kill. The mind, the body, the spirit .... are all the illusions of the human brain which is perseiving universe outside the human shell, and interpreting the needs of the human shell. The mind makes the choice to kill or to allow something or someone to kill you, which creates the problem of self making the choice to kill?

So, yeah, we can kill, but that damn choice to kill .. now there is the problem .... isn't there.

My mind always seems to want to believe that when someone or some animal is killed in front of my eyes, that it can be fixed or brought back to life, but the fact is, we don't have that power or technology to bring life back to those we kill ... at least not in a practical everyday sense.

hmmmmmmmmmm....

I am gonna dwell on it for ten more minutes, and warm up my green tea.

catch ya later.

Jock Armstrong
15th July 2004, 12:39
You can also get too philosophical about it. If you are justified in killing an enemy, go home happy to be alive. The only time you should feel remorse is if you do something wrong. Get it straight in your head and get on with your life. Over analysing and excessive introspection are the banes of modern society- some things just are, accept it and move on. If you don't, all you do is make yourself and your loved ones miserable and line the pockets of psychiatrists.

Simon Ford-Powell
15th July 2004, 14:01
This is / has been a very interesting discussion, am I the only one who feels unqualified to actually make a vote? It must be great to have such a certain knowledge of yourself that you can actually answer this question, I obviously do not know myself that well!

ZenDragonfly
30th August 2004, 01:27
If you are justified in killing an enemy, go home happy to be alive. The only time you should feel remorse is if you do something wrong. Get it straight in your head and get on with your life. Over analysing and excessive introspection are the banes of modern society

I'd say that about sums up my feelings on the matter.

Five years ago I'd have waffled on this question and gotten all introspective and 'deep' about it. But now i have a wife and four children and i can say without reservation, and without a shred of guilt that i would definetly kill if thats what i had to do to protect those i love.

However, i dont even kill insects these days (sept mosquitoes and the wicked Hornets that plauge my yard), so what i would acctually 'feel' about doing such a thing is unkown to me. But i like to think i'd be very practical and realistic about it and that i would move on without brooding about it....but who really knows?


We will see

peace,
:smilejapa

Kimpatsu
30th August 2004, 02:50
Resurrecting this old thread?
Introspection is vital; the idea that it's the bane of modern society sounds borderline sociopathic. Always analyse everything that you do, from many conceivable angles. You can never think too much.

Jock Armstrong
4th September 2004, 02:55
I rest my case M'lud...........:D

Jock Armstrong
4th September 2004, 02:57
BTW, I said "excessive introspection". :nono: :smilejapa

Aikido_Girl918
24th August 2005, 01:23
no, i do not think that i could possibly handle that, or physically do it. seeing as i am twelve i am sure that is not too surprising, though. i only know one technique that could kill, because we focus on getting the person into a control hold of getting them to the ground and then getting away. however, using enough techniques, i am confident that i could finish the fight without too much hassle. but killing another human being would kill my spirit.

twayman
27th August 2005, 00:22
A resounding yes… If in the right situation I would take them out and go home with out a second thought. Humans are predators and the strongest will survive. Society (laws) and morality are all that keeps us from killing each other on a whim. If challenged in life or death I would pick life.

P.S. I do study martial arts for a reason. :rolleyes:

Mekugi
27th August 2005, 05:08
(Nevermind)

Brian Owens
27th August 2005, 06:40
...killing another human being would kill my spirit.
It's unlikely that anyone (other than a soldier or, rarely, a police officer) will face that situation these days. Still, it can happen.

Should it ever happen, remember what the wise master once said (more or less): Sometimes you must cut off a finger to save the hand.

Chuck Clark
27th August 2005, 15:11
What it comes down to is that we all have to make this decision responsibly each and every time we're faced with the instant where we think it's necessary.
No matter how much or how well you're trained, you have to make the decision and live with yourself and your fellow man.

Of course there are times when it may be justified and necessary for survival. Some people can do it, others can't. Even those that have killed sometimes find they can't do it again. It's not a simple thing. If you think it's a simple thing, I hope you never have to find out for real. If you do find out for real and still think it's a simple thing, you're part of the problem.

Respectfully,

Mekugi
27th August 2005, 16:54
This is a very good outlook and I find it hard to disagree with on any level.

Going into it, you would be surprised what this subject brings up here in Japan and what it brings out in people.

I sat in a town outside of Tokyo (actually, a great distance) with a Japanese person who was my sempai in a style budo I study (note the lack of name or ryu here). He spent about 60 minutes explaining his outlook on budo, killing, and world politics over frosty afternoon beverages. In the end I found much of what was said very distressing at the least. To him, Japan during the past 130 years was not really "conquering" or colonizing countries like Korea, but merely "helping" them. Furthermore, we who follow political history and general sociology had the wrong idea about Japan. It was told to me that Budo was not about fighting but about peace. Ok...I get that, yet what followed as an explanation left a great deal to be desired. It was then told to me that anything that had to do with actually hurting someone was dismissed from budo, and this was the exact same reason firearms were banned in Japan. Comparing one technique to another was really silly and low level conversation, as budo was not meant to be used. It went on like this, with more twists and turns unfolding as we talked...sliding into the "Japan was a peace country" venue again, with those pesty South Koreans protesting the islands that were still colonized by the Japanese as the Japanese citizenry stood by and watched it calmly (because of the peace thing, not because they were scared to death, of course.) This then came around to the little misunderstanding in China during WWII; and the slaughtering of all those innocent children was a skewed point of view, as Japan is really about peace. What really stuck with me was some good advice, which is in some ways the divination of the obvious: be good at one thing, and many other things will follow under it. So, the experience was not totally a waste of time, it just needed to be weeded through to get anything out of it. To me, while this person was perhaps well versed in budo, they knew jack sh** about anything else.



What it comes down to is that we all have to make this decision responsibly each and every time we're faced with the instant where we think it's necessary.
No matter how much or how well you're trained, you have to make the decision and live with yourself and your fellow man.

Of course there are times when it may be justified and necessary for survival. Some people can do it, others can't. Even those that have killed sometimes find they can't do it again. It's not a simple thing. If you think it's a simple thing, I hope you never have to find out for real. If you do find out for real and still think it's a simple thing, you're part of the problem.

Respectfully,

Jack Chen
30th August 2005, 05:49
This then came around to the little misunderstanding in China during WWII; and the slaughtering of all those innocent children was a skewed point of view, as Japan is really about peace.

What?! -_-''

Mekugi
31st August 2005, 15:43
Beats me. Apperantly, invading China was about progress for China and not about Japanese colonialism/expansionism. Odd that eh?


What?! -_-''

twayman
31st August 2005, 17:31
It's unlikely that anyone (other than a soldier or, rarely, a police officer) will face that situation these days. Still, it can happen.

Just a personal thought and observation. These days’ situations become deadly in a heart-beat. You never know when and where a life and death situation will be encountered. In Fresno, a city 60 miles from where I live there is at least one murder a day (at least reported on the news). In the city, which I live in, it happens way more often than you would think (not reported). Examples: people are attacked for shoes, because they disagree at a party the list goes on, some even result in their death. If you don’t have the foresight and believe that it could happen to you then you just may become a statistic. Not to say instantly kill someone in a given conflict is the answer, but to not think it can not happen is just unrealistic these days. A saying I heard once “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” always comes to mind when I get in to these discussions. Just my 2 cents…

Jock Armstrong
1st September 2005, 06:59
I'm glad I'm not the only one Russ- I used to have a student at Nova [damn good English speaker but as right wing as they come] who used to always bring up the A bomb and how bad the allies were and how it was a war crime. We weren't supposed to even mention the war in the conversation room but it always turned to it when he was there. One day I just asked him if he'd ever seen the state of allied POW's held by the Japanese. he just stopped dead [he obviously had]. I just said that that and the casualties incurred in the pacific campaign had removed any sympathy the allies might have had for the civil population on Japan. however the 'Culture" rule still applied to bombing- Nara and Kyoto were specifically excluded. Funnily enough he stopped raving but occasionally he'd be in denial over Nanking, Singapore etc..............

Trevor Johnson
1st September 2005, 16:50
Part of it may be due to massive miseducation. My mom used to work at Sumitomo Bank in NYC, and it was amazing how much they didn't know. Apparently the Japanese who were being rotated to Western branches, particularly US, were sat down and told about WWII, that we all knew about it, and to be very careful. My mom actually mentioned WWII once, (during an argument over how traditional turkey was, he didn't think that they had T-day turkey 50 yrs ago, and she said "No, in those days we were sending them to the soldiers on the front.") causing her superior to turn and almost run away! Others of the Japanese knew that they had gotten bombed, but not why! And then there was the Fed audit on V-J day, which caused all of the senior Americans to grin, and none of the Japanese, many of whom were born shortly after the war( just like my mom) got it at all. (The Americans all went off and found private corners to laugh in, because they couldn't look each other in the face until they had had a nice laugh...)

Seito-K
14th May 2014, 16:56
Ok, I'm replying to this old old thread, so I'm sure no one will read this. But, the question seriously challenged me, and I need to sort out my thoughts on the subject. I found myself strangely reluctant to even answer the poll question, partly because the answer seems obvious. I think almost everyone who studies a martial art is prepared to go to the gravest extreme to defend themselves and their loved ones. That is why they (I) make the commitment in the first place. Just a word on my own background; I'm new to martial arts. I have been studying for about two months, total. So this post is sort of just my way of coming to terms with my own philosophy. Every so often my sensei goes back to a familiar theme during training, one which I'm sure many here are familiar with. It goes something like this, "do the least damage necessary to end the conflict." On the surface, this seems to directly contradict the premise of the question posed at the beginning of this thread. So I needed to delve deeper. What are the circumstances under which I would find it necessary to take another life? To me, the operative word is "necessary." This reminds me of a video I saw online on the "justifiable use of lethal force"." It was a seminar given by Massad Ayoob to a group of concealed handgun license holders. Incidentally, I've been licensed to carry a handgun for years, whereas I have just recently begun studying martial arts. However, the concept seems to translate. Mr. Ayoob stated that lethal force is justified under the principles of "disparity of force," which basically means that you have found yourself in a situation where you are clearly outmatched or outnumbered, and the other party (or parties) have manifested intent to kill or commit grave bodily injury. Under these circumstances lethal force is legally (and morally) justified. The part that gets me is the idea of "disparity of force" with respect to the martial arts world. As I become more proficient, it seems that this is a situation that will become more and more unlikely. As I become more skilled, the probability will decrease that I will encounter someone who is far above my skill level. But, what if I were to be attacked by someone who is clearly much more skilled than myself? What would I do? If I were carrying a gun, I would attempt (if the situation permitted) to show my willingness to use it, and hopefully this would end the conflict. Still, anyone who makes the decision to carry a firearm must also come to terms with the possibility of being forced to pull the trigger. I think the same commitment is required of someone who chooses to train in a martial art. However, there is a difference. There are degrees of force available to a trained martial artist, that are not available to someone who is only licensed to carry a gun. Take a one-on-one conflict, for instance. I personally think that what I would do, is try to instantly assess the skill level of my opponent (erring on the side of caution), and compare it to my own. This would dictate my response. Again, "do the least harm necessary to end the conflict." Since at this particular time I'm relatively inexperienced, that seems to give me more freedom to apply more force in response. But as my skill level increases, I will have more options to end a conflict in a non-lethal way. And what exactly is the situation where I can see myself taking another human life? I think it would only be in the situation where I am outmatched and/or outnumbered. I think it would be only in the situation where my training level did not yet give me the ability to drive away my attackers with a non-lethal response. It seems to me that the farther my training progresses, the less likely that situation will become. I hope this is the case. I'm also not blind to the fact that I'm pondering a moral judgment that, should the day come, could have to be made in the blink of an eye. All the more reason for me to think it through now. So I think my answer to the poll is "yes". I am committed to using lethal force, if that is the only option available to me. I came to terms with that when I chose to apply for a concealed handgun license. I hope that my training will offer me the increasing ability to assess my attacker(s), to use non-lethal force where possible, and make the possibility that I will need to kill, a more remote one. I will say this, there may be a tendency for some to fantasize about their own lethal powers. I think a more noble pursuit would be to sacrifice, and train, and push yourself harder every day, in order to making killing a more remote possibility. And thank you for the question. I do think a possibly more probing question would be, "would you kill?"Daniel Smith

cxt
23rd May 2014, 17:10
Daniel

I think....IMO...that taking the time to really think the question through....as you clearly have. Is a very good thing.

I think the "fantasy" element you mention is a real stumbling block for some folk in their training.

gendzwil
29th May 2014, 17:05
I think almost everyone who studies a martial art is prepared to go to the gravest extreme to defend themselves and their loved ones. That is why they (I) make the commitment in the first place.People study martial arts for lots of reasons. For some reason, many people who study primarily for self-defence can't understand that there are other reasons.

Aden
30th May 2014, 03:16
People study martial arts for lots of reasons. For some reason, many people who study primarily for self-defence can't understand that there are other reasons.

Indeed - while Kendo / Jodo / Iaido, the arts of the Kendo Federation come from historical methods of combat, post WWII they are almost entirely disconnected from actual modern combatatives as currently propagated... so many / most of our members dont think of it as being related to self defence. Instead they do karate / judo / mma for that side of things.

Hissho
1st June 2014, 00:37
People study martial arts for lots of reasons. For some reason, many people who study primarily for self-defence can't understand that there are other reasons.

Heh - more and more I can't understand why someone would study a martial art primarily for self defense!