PDA

View Full Version : Caught on tape?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Chikai Aikidoka
05-10-2006, 01:29 AM
Has anybody came across an Aikido technique caught on camera off the dojo (ex, during riot control, arrest resistance, bar brawl, etc.)?

For all of our aikidoka brethren and sisters working at law enforcment, have ur security cameras ever caught some of these aikido techniques being applied.

It would be nice to c such clips.

Cheers!

Simbo
05-10-2006, 12:25 PM
That'd be interesting to see

Lan Powers
05-10-2006, 09:08 PM
A program on the tube " America's Most Dangerous Shootouts" or some such equally fatuous title, had a segment where a highway patrolman was being held at pistol point by a desperate man with a poor sense of ma-ai....quick as a wink you saw an attempt at ikyo (failed unfortunately), but one of the better "caught - on - camera" moments I have seen.
Lan

Abasan
05-11-2006, 02:48 AM
he failed and he was lucky the guy didn't shoot him. I saw that film too.

Chikai Aikidoka
05-14-2006, 09:59 AM
That's it!? Only a failed Ikkyo caught on tape? and nothing else? :(

No sankyos, no kote gaeshis, no otoshi's ... come on! I tried to search youtube but I have a slow connection and so far no luck.

Law enforcement aikidokas ... come on! don't u have any arrests riot tapes etc.? :confused:

Lan Powers
05-14-2006, 10:40 AM
OK, Another one that I missed but my wife saw and later told me about...
A training situation on one of the cop shows had a hostage with a gunman behind pressing a pistol to the side of the head of the hostage.
Hostage/tori slipped down and gripped the gunman/uke in sankyo as he dropped straight down cutting out and over.
Hard to describe, but when my non aikidoka wife demonstrated it on me she almost took me right off my feet. She just recognised the move and voila!! :rolleyes:

I have spotted several kokyunages on the football field and a tenshin/atemi one-shot that dropped one opponent in the UFC. (Tho the puncher wouldn't call it that probably)
Otherwise i have only used ukemi in the "real world"...thankfully.
Lan

statisticool
05-14-2006, 11:59 AM
While not aikido, more like taekwondo, did anyone see the video where a person was being held at knifepoint and the hero did a flying jump kick successfully, and everyone came out OK?

George S. Ledyard
05-17-2006, 07:33 PM
That's it!? Only a failed Ikkyo caught on tape? and nothing else? :(

No sankyos, no kote gaeshis, no otoshi's ... come on! I tried to search youtube but I have a slow connection and so far no luck.

Law enforcement aikidokas ... come on! don't u have any arrests riot tapes etc.? :confused:

The number of people in law enforcement who have any degree of skill with Aikido techniques is quite small. The techniques commonly used in law enforcement as takedowns would be the two hand hair hold, the straight arm bar takedown and the back hand cross face takedown.

The straight arm bar takedown is derived from ikkyo but as taught by the majority of the folks in Defensive tactics, it won't work worth a damn. The standard LE version requires superior size and strength to even hope to pull it off (or a very drunk subject).

The back hand cross face takedown would be a kind of iriminage for most Aikido folks. Once again, as taught in most LE classes, it is only slightly more effective than the straight arm bar.

The technique which most cops can actually do is the two hand hair hold takedown but now that very short cropped hair is back in style, many cannot do the version which does not require the subject to have long hair.

Aikido, while having many techniques which could be adapted for use by law enforcement personnel, isn't very useful for most police as they simply won't train enough to acquire real skill at doing them. The average officer has under fifty hours of defensive tactics training when he hits the streets and after that he receives an average of two eight hour sessions a year for refresher, This training covers all areas of defensive tactics including OC spray, Taser, baton , etc. So the actual time spent on low level force empty hand technique is so low that it's really just "feel good" training which has little or no actual benefit.

There are, of course. some individuals who train on their own. They are apt to be fairly effective in their understanding of applied technique due to being able to practice on subjects with some regularity (assuming they work in a rough area). Corrections officers are apt to be the best at empty hand technique as they do not carry weapons and have to rely solely on their empty hand skills.

Still, the numbers of folks who take the initiative to acquire skill on their own time and on their own dime is so small that you have a very small chance of seeing the action caught on video or during the filming of COPS.

Bronson
05-17-2006, 10:45 PM
Still, the numbers of folks who take the initiative to acquire skill on their own time and on their own dime is so small that you have a very small chance of seeing the action caught on video or during the filming of COPS.

One of our yudansha is the local chief of police. Our Sensei made him a deal that if the city paid the maximum family rate per month as many officers as wanted to train could with no out of pocket expense to themselves. So far not a single officer has ever come in.

Bronson

skinnymonkey
05-19-2006, 07:11 AM
I have searched all over the net looking for examples of good Aikido technique used in a real life situation... and what I found was actually very shocking to me. There aren't many examples of trained martial artists (of any style) who are really involved in a street altercation. Here are some examples of the few that I found...

http://www.guzer.com/videos/kungfu_fight.php
http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/606.html

In addition, these are fighters who are trained in styles that have a lot more American following than Aikido... and I was only able to find a few clips with Karate, Tae Kwon Do, or Kung-Fu use. So if you think about it... with the number of people studying those arts (much higher than Aikido) I was only able to find a few examples of real situations. So logically, an art like Aikido would have an even smaller chance to be caught in a real situation on tape. In addition to that, Aikido moves don't really tend to lend themselves to a prolonged fight. If you are able to apply a good technique, it should be over relatively quickly.

So I don't know if I would hold my breath looking for good examples of this on the net, because it will probably be a long time before anything like that surfaces.

BUT if you find one, please let us know!!

Bronson
05-19-2006, 08:44 AM
I can't remember where I read it or even if it is at all accurate, but there was an estimate that only 1% or so of U.S. citizens would even consider studying a martial art. I don't know if this included things like wrestling and boxing or if it was talking about asian MA.

Bronson

statisticool
05-19-2006, 02:51 PM
I have searched all over the net looking for examples of good Aikido technique used in a real life situation... and what I found was actually very shocking to me. There aren't many examples of trained martial artists (of any style) who are really involved in a street altercation.


I don't think it is too shocking really. Most of the real stuff in real life is random and unplanned, not agreed upon sport fights, or agreed upon schoolyard fights, etc., where people have video camaras handy, even in this technological age.

Maybe search for police arrest videos and see if they use any takedown, wrist/arm lock, or submission techniques??

Talon
05-19-2006, 11:53 PM
I've seen both of these videos before. The pimp one is not all that impressive. The pimp could barely walk or keep balance before he got punched and technically he did not attack the Karate guy at all. I didn't see him swing or grab or anything. He walked up to the Karate guy who punched him fist. Whatever.

The Kung fu guy was funny and lucky. Its amazing that after all of that fancy crap he was doing at the strart, he ended up winning the fight with a typical haymaker... pretty funny...

Don_Modesto
05-20-2006, 03:02 PM
The pimp could barely walk or keep balance before he got punched and technically he did not attack the Karate guy at all. I didn't see him swing or grab or anything. He walked up to the Karate guy who punched him fist. Whatever. Attack...

Assault is not necessarily touching someone; threat is a kind of assault. It's battery if you make contact.

I would imagine the karate guy was legally justified in defending himself; it doesn't take a genius to read the body language of the pimp, nor to imagine what he was saying. Perhaps we have some LEOs reading who may comment?

The Kung fu guy was funny and lucky. Its amazing that after all of that fancy crap he was doing at the strart, he ended up winning the fight with a typical haymaker... pretty funny...

He won the fight when he showed himself Eddy Murphy rolling eyes crazy enough to do that kung fu posturing stuff. Did you see the mouthy punk's demeanor change when whitebread started looking like Jackie Chan? It was over then.

giriasis
05-20-2006, 07:43 PM
Attack...

Assault is not necessarily touching someone; threat is a kind of assault. It's battery if you make contact.

In lay person's terms I believe heavily worded threats, assault and battery would all be considered an attack. Remember most lay persons interchange assault and battery and often consider them one in the same.

And to be more accurate...A threat is not necessarily an assault, but battery doesn't necessarily require someone touching you. Mere threats do not usually amount to an assault unless there is some sort of accompaning behavior that leads a person to believe that a battery might occur to their body. What constitutes a person's "body" in legal terms can include other objects like glasses, hats, purses, etc. that the attacker hits but the attacker still does not technically touch a persons physical body.

Thus, the threat that amounted to an assault due to the aggressive behaviour of the pimp can not necessarily amount to a battery unless there was contact to something like a hat or glasses. However this does not mean that the karate guy can not defend himself appropriately.

I would imagine the karate guy was legally justified in defending himself; it doesn't take a genius to read the body language of the pimp, nor to imagine what he was saying. Perhaps we have some LEOs reading who may comment?

Let's go into some application of the GENERAL law here. (Note: I'm am only talking about assault and battery in general. The specifics laws vary from state to state and from country to country so the outcome could be different.) If the pimp stayed on the other side of the street and did not approach the karate guy but rather said a bunch of words then there would only be mere threats and no assault. The karate guy would have not be in the right to go over and just hit the pimp in the name of self-defense for calling him names.

However, it looks from the video that the pimps threats amounted to an assault when he started walking towards the karate guy in an aggressive manner. If a person's actions (the pimp) creates an apprehension (mild fear) in the other person (the karate guy) that they will most likely suffer a battery (be hit) then there is an assault. At such time, you may then you enough force necessary to prevent the battery. By doing what looked like either a simple strike or iriminage type technique, it looks like the karate guy used enough force necessary to diffuse the situation and prevent a battery from occuring.

However, assuming the exact same scenario from the video, if the karate guy then started kicking the pimp while he was down then the karate guy's actions could have amount to a battery and his use of force in defending himself could have been excessive. (Whether it would have or not depends on the law of the jurisdiction, the court, judge, jury, and the prosecuter -- hence the "could" language.)

However, there was no battery on the karate guy by the pimp because there was no touching. (There would have been battery on the prostitute, however.) The pimp did not actually physically touch the karate guy. Hypothetically, there could be battery if let's say the karate guy wore glasses and the pimp knocked his glasses off (not touching the physical body of the karate guy but close enough in legal terms to be considered his body).

Michael Hackett
05-21-2006, 12:24 AM
Anne Marie's descriptions are spot on. Here in California an assault is defined as an attempt, coupled with the present ability to perform a battery. The classic schoolyard bully chest forward lunge is an assault out here. Battery is the unlawful touching of the person of another - and, as Anne Marie said, includes the clothing and accessories worn or in the hands of the victim. Again, as Anne Marie said, laymen always seem to describe these kinds of events as assaults and never as batteries.

Talon
05-21-2006, 12:35 AM
I thought that batteries were those things you put in portable electronics, mp3 players etc.. Just kidding...WOW what detailed definitions and explanations etc...Any more interesting vids?

Lan Powers
05-27-2006, 08:05 AM
I can't remember where I read it or even if it is at all accurate, but there was an estimate that only 1% or so of U.S. citizens would even consider studying a martial art. I don't know if this included things like wrestling and boxing or if it was talking about asian MA.

Bronson

I have heard that before.....I must live in a more-violently inclined segment of the world since I am constantly meeting people who have trained in one thing or another. Often someone will notice the kanji on my car window, or just start spontaineously talking about martial arts movies that are on, or just know someone who knows someone who knows me...etc. etc.
It seems that EVERYONE is into some kind of martial arts training or other.
I have often pondered that split between what I hear and what I actually see.
Lan

Kevin Leavitt
05-27-2006, 10:20 AM
George Ledyard wrote:

Aikido, while having many techniques which could be adapted for use by law enforcement personnel, isn't very useful for most police as they simply won't train enough to acquire real skill at doing them. The average officer has under fifty hours of defensive tactics training when he hits the streets and after that he receives an average of two eight hour sessions a year for refresher, This training covers all areas of defensive tactics including OC spray, Taser, baton , etc. So the actual time spent on low level force empty hand technique is so low that it's really just "feel good" training which has little or no actual benefit.


We have the exact same issue in the Army, which is why we teach Army Combatives the way we do. The Chief of Staff of the Army has put an emphasis on Combatives requiring all of us to do it weekly, yet you still must teach the masses much differently than someone that "cares" about it and will take the time to train correctly.

aikidoc
05-27-2006, 10:55 AM
The first video to me was obious the kung fu guy was not real experienced. The way he was stepping forward with a slapping type step and the way he blocked made him look like he was fairly new. He got lucky with a haymaker. The karate guy on the other hand hit the guy with a nice tegatana shot behind the ear to a pressure point and knocked him cold with one strike. He didn't get fancy but just assumed a defensive stance and when the guy kept coming he knocked him on his ass. Impressive.

mriehle
05-27-2006, 05:24 PM
I think that nails it on the first video. Not experienced. But he did know something. His footwork was bad on a couple of levels. Besides the slapping step, he kept hyperextending the front leg. When I see that, I see a big target complete with concentric circles. But even though his blocking was rough and his punches didn't go as planned, he clearly had a plan.

Sometimes luck happens because you made a couple fewer mistakes.

Moreover, I don't think that punch was haymaker. Or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be. He throws three "punches" in a row where he's clearly aiming to hit with his forearm. I've seen that strike before and I've always wondered how effective it actually is. Still don't know, really.

The other one was funnier, actually. That pimp was just stupid. Cocky. He's so used to people being afraid that he just came in expecting to start beating on the guy. No attempt at a defensive posture at all. It was hard to have any sympathy for him at all.

djalley
05-30-2006, 11:10 AM
Be sure to keep in mind that when claiming self defense, the defender first has the duty to flee in most states, meaning they must try to remove themselves and/or others from the situation if at all possible. If you could have gotten away easily, but choose to stay and fight, in the eyes of the law you may be just as guilty as an assailant.

There are several states that have passed, or are considering passing stand your ground legislation, giving the law abiding citizen no duty to flee. There, one may defend themself with appropriate force as long as he has the right to be where he is. These laws generally allow for protection against civil suits from the aggressor (or his estate).

I'm all for it because anything that makes things harder on criminals is better.

Don

Michael Hackett
05-30-2006, 03:18 PM
I don't think Don is correct about most states requiring an individual to flee before the doctrine of self-defense applies. There are still some, certainly, and even those have room for the quick and close encounter to be a matter of self-defense. There is almost no protection against being sued civilly; the real protection is against an unfavorable judgement. To get to that point remains a very expensive and time-consuming proposition. You can be right and it still can cost you a small fortune to defend yourself and prevail at trial. Often the plaintiff has nothing and even if you receive "costs and fees" from the court, collecting them is another matter.

If you truly are in a situation where you have to protect yourself or loved ones, then you simply do what you have to do and it will get sorted out later. It might be expensive, it might be troublesome, it might even be emotionally painful, but getting killed or seriously injured seems much worse to me. The old police joke of "Its better to be tried by six than carried by twelve." has a ring of truth.

Talon
05-30-2006, 03:36 PM
The old police joke of "Its better to be tried by six than carried by twelve." has a ring of truth.

Isn't it tried by twelve and carried by six?

statisticool
05-30-2006, 05:55 PM
If you could have gotten away easily, but choose to stay and fight, in the eyes of the law you may be just as guilty as an assailant.


Great point Donald!

giriasis
05-30-2006, 09:31 PM
Be sure to keep in mind that when claiming self defense, the defender first has the duty to flee in most states, meaning they must try to remove themselves and/or others from the situation if at all possible. If you could have gotten away easily, but choose to stay and fight, in the eyes of the law you may be just as guilty as an assailant.

There are several states that have passed, or are considering passing stand your ground legislation, giving the law abiding citizen no duty to flee. There, one may defend themself with appropriate force as long as he has the right to be where he is. These laws generally allow for protection against civil suits from the aggressor (or his estate).

I'm all for it because anything that makes things harder on criminals is better.

Don

I was under the impression that the Duty to Retreat law was only found in a minority of jurisdications. In Florida, they just recently passed the Stand Your Ground legislation and there is no longer duty to retreat.

djalley
05-30-2006, 10:47 PM
I don't think Don is correct about most states requiring an individual to flee before the doctrine of self-defense applies. There are still some, certainly, and even those have room for the quick and close encounter to be a matter of self-defense. There is almost no protection against being sued civilly; the real protection is against an unfavorable judgement. To get to that point remains a very expensive and time-consuming proposition. You can be right and it still can cost you a small fortune to defend yourself and prevail at trial. Often the plaintiff has nothing and even if you receive "costs and fees" from the court, collecting them is another matter.

If you truly are in a situation where you have to protect yourself or loved ones, then you simply do what you have to do and it will get sorted out later. It might be expensive, it might be troublesome, it might even be emotionally painful, but getting killed or seriously injured seems much worse to me. The old police joke of "Its better to be tried by six than carried by twelve." has a ring of truth.

My understanding is that indeed most states do hold the duty to flee as being the norm. You must be able to prove that you could not leave the situation without risk to yourself or others (such as family and friends). However, there are varying interpretations as to what that duty entails (of course!). If you simply cannot pack your wife and kids into the minivan to get away from a guy weilding a pipe wrench, then fleeing is not an option, and you can generally defend them and yourself. At the same time, getting into a gunfight at 100 yards off, when you could just have easily ducked down an alleyway 2 feet from you, would be a hard sell on self defense.

Here in Michigan, you basically have the duty to flee even in your own home. You must retreat, if possible, into a safer area of the house. Morally this is reprehensible, but ethicly it is required. You can claim self defense when you are backed into a corner. If you have wife, kids, loved ones, etc to protect as well, and they're scattered throughout the house, then you MAY not have to retreat further into your own home as you cannot guarantee safe flight of all family members without risking injury/death of a loved one. It gets handled on a case by case basis.

The Stand Your Ground legislation being proposed in Michigan, and having already been enacted into law in other states (such as Florida) removes the duty to flee and allow the law abiding citizen the right to self defense and defense of others an any location they are legally allowed to be. It also strips the aggressor or his estate from being able to take the defender to civil court should it be deemed that it was a legitimate self defense situation.

Does it mean we all get to be tough guys? No. Does that mean we all get to enforce the law? No. It is designed primaily to allow the law abiding citizen to focus his thoughts on his own defense rather than going through a legal "checklist" before defending himself.

Check the laws in your states. Invariably you'll find some language that limits the self-defense claim and mentions the duty to remove one's self from the situation if at all possible.

And not to hijack the thread with this, it is VERY IMPORTANT for any martial artist, weapon practicioner, firearm enthusiast, etc to KNOW the laws in one's own state regarding the ability to use their "tools" in their defense. Just as the tutorial on "assault" and "battery" opened my eyes to the technicalities, reading the laws should be required material for us all.

Don