Would you kill someone using Aikido if you had to.

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Joseph Madden]

This may be a controversial question to ask on the AikiWeb forum, and I'm sure someone has asked it in the past, but as a reasonably new member I felt it was important to get a consensus. If someone was attempting to kill you with an edged weapon would you defend yourself using lethal force if your life depended on it. Notice I haven't used the word "assault" with an edged weapon as I deem anyone attempting to use an edged weapon on your person are attempting to end your life. I'd like everyone's opinion, but specifically Canadian responses as our laws are far more narrow when it comes to the protection of the individual compared to other countries.

[hullu]

Sure. Prob after killing me he would continue doing something stupid.

[akiy]

Here are two polls I conducted here on AikiWeb back in 2000:

"Would you kill your attacker if your own life depended upon it?"
http://www.aikiweb.com/polls/results.html?poll_id=17

"Would you kill an attacker if a human life other than your own depended upon it?"
http://www.aikiweb.com/polls/results.html?poll_id=18

-- Jun

[Aristeia]

Isn't this somewhat begging the queston? If you had to you would surely? The question becomes either could you, or do you have to. Are you asking if it's a choice of me or him who do I choose? In most conceivable cases that's a no brainer imo.

[graham]

No.

[Aikibu]

Yes.

William Hazen

[Marc Abrams]

dead men tell no lies.

Dead men do not sue you.

Dead men do not try and hurt you again.

I second William's answer.

Marc Abrams

[SeiserL]

No, I know faster, quicker, and more sure ways than Aikido.

[Fred Little]

The premise is a question about self-defense, or goshinjutsu.

The right of self-defense is almost universally acknowledged.

That said, I would be derelict if I didn't note that Terry Dobson was adamant in his belief that there was a distinct difference between goshinjutsu, or the art of self-defense, and aikido, which he insisted was not an art of self-defense, but a way of protection.

Careful consideration of that view leads to a whole different range of questions.

Best,

FL

[darin]

dead men tell no lies.

Dead men do not sue you.

Dead men do not try and hurt you again.

I second William's answer.

Marc Abrams

I don't know about that... Been watching Ghost Hunters. I wonder if EVPs would hold up in court. "heeee kiiillllled meeee".:D You'd have to do a Brian "Dude run!".

[xuzen]

This may be a controversial question to ask on the AikiWeb forum, and I'm sure someone has asked it in the past, but as a reasonably new member I felt it was important to get a consensus. If someone was attempting to kill you with an edged weapon would you defend yourself using lethal force if your life depended on it. Notice I haven't used the word "assault" with an edged weapon as I deem anyone attempting to use an edged weapon on your person are attempting to end your life. I'd like everyone's opinion, but specifically Canadian responses as our laws are far more narrow when it comes to the protection of the individual compared to other countries.

Hmmm... where do you guys learn How to KlLL with aikido? Maybe my teacher is withholding T3H D34DLY from me.

All I ever got to learn are just some lousy elbow dislocating technique... I want T3H D34DLY now, I want, I want, I want.....

Oh, sorry, I got carried away, back to the original question.... No I won't, at least not on purpose. I do not want to be charged for pre-mediated murder.

Boon.

[Paul Sanderson-Cimino]

This may be a controversial question to ask on the AikiWeb forum, and I'm sure someone has asked it in the past, but as a reasonably new member I felt it was important to get a consensus. If someone was attempting to kill you with an edged weapon would you defend yourself using lethal force if your life depended on it. Notice I haven't used the word "assault" with an edged weapon as I deem anyone attempting to use an edged weapon on your person are attempting to end your life. I'd like everyone's opinion, but specifically Canadian responses as our laws are far more narrow when it comes to the protection of the individual compared to other countries.

Forgive my saying so, but I think this is a silly question, given:

1) The odds of running into a life or death violent encounter
2) The odds of gaining dominance in such an encounter (which you presumably would not be instigating)
3) The odds of doing so using aikido.

To be blunt, I think most of us could not fight our ways out of paper bags. This is a question to worry about when most of us aikidoka actually learn how to be competent martial artists. On that magical day, maybe we can devote a few hours of our time to worrying about such things.

But really, this is so far above our current level on the hierarchy of needs that it seems pointless to discuss.

[Aikibu]

The premise is a question about self-defense, or goshinjutsu.

The right of self-defense is almost universally acknowledged.

That said, I would be derelict if I didn't note that Terry Dobson was adamant in his belief that there was a distinct difference between goshinjutsu, or the art of self-defense, and aikido, which he insisted was not an art of self-defense, but a way of protection.

Careful consideration of that view leads to a whole different range of questions.

Best,

FL

What that in mind... Proper use of Aikido can result in a fatal conclusion...The intention may be one of protection... the result may not reflect those intentions...Under Duress and the threat of serious bodily harm or death Aikido must be a Martial Art first and foremost with the intention of "protecting" both the Nage and Uke.

I know it has potentially saved my life a few times and I feel great relief I was not forced to do more than break a few bones...

As Shoji Nishio expressed it. "Sincere Heart through Austere Practice."

William Hazen

[Will Prusner]

I'd like to think that if my Aikido was good enough, I would have other options. There are plenty of arts that focus on the destruction of an opponent. I like Aikido because it allows such a situation to be resolved through a morally and ethically higher means.

On a practical level, what if the guy you kill has friends with guns, who are unhappy about the decision you made? And what if after you get gunned down, your friends decide to set those guy's houses on fire? And what if after the houses get burned down... ...see where this is leading?

Violence begets violence. I believe Morihei understood this after seeing his country get hit with two nukes. I believe he realized that the problem with violence is that it escalates, and that we as a species had increased our potential for destruction to the point that violence was no longer a viable alternative (if it ever really had been) for combatting violence.

I like options. Options are good.:)

[roadster]

Ah, perhaps Pai Mei shall teach you Aikidoka the five point palm exploding heart technique. :D

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/341/dcsportbikescom59441011ky5.gif

What kind of scenario would you need to kill someone? Why wouldn't you just be able to break a major bone and leave instead?

[DarkShodan]

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: If someones dies as a result of my actions, it's not aikido. As far as I know aikido does not have any killing moves. Would I uses aikido techniques and skills to set up a killing move? Yes.

I've had this discussion many times online, with my friends and family. Aside from the moral issues and the endless possible scenarios, (what if this, and what if that) I think it is important to decide, today, if you are able to kill someone and in what circumstances.

Example: Two people try to car-jack me while my two sons are in the back seat. Yes, without hesitation.

[Joseph Madden]

Thanks for posting the link to the archives Jun. So apparently back in the good ole days of 2000, 85% of aikidoka would use deadly force not only to defend themselves, but to defend other people. With regards to everyone else who has answered the question thus far, the greatest thanks.

OSU

[Joseph Madden]

Hmmm... where do you guys learn How to KlLL with aikido? Maybe my teacher is withholding T3H D34DLY from me.

All I ever got to learn are just some lousy elbow dislocating technique... I want T3H D34DLY now, I want, I want, I want.....

Oh, sorry, I got carried away, back to the original question.... No I won't, at least not on purpose. I do not want to be charged for pre-mediated murder.

Boon.

Xu,
Don't you think using ushiro nage against a person, say so their head hits the concrete hard enough that it kills them would be an effective killing technique. And also, why would you be charged with pre-meditated murder in such a case?

[GLWeeks]

Yep, without a second thought.

[Joseph Madden]

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: If someones dies as a result of my actions, it's not aikido. As far as I know aikido does not have any killing moves. Would I uses aikido techniques and skills to set up a killing move? Yes.

I've had this discussion many times online, with my friends and family. Aside from the moral issues and the endless possible scenarios, (what if this, and what if that) I think it is important to decide, today, if you are able to kill someone and in what circumstances.

Example: Two people try to car-jack me while my two sons are in the back seat. Yes, without hesitation.

Exceptional answer Lloyd

OSU

[Aikibu]

Ah, perhaps Pai Mei shall teach you Aikidoka the five point palm exploding heart technique. :D

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/341/dcsportbikescom59441011ky5.gif

What kind of scenario would you need to kill someone? Why wouldn't you just be able to break a major bone and leave instead?

I have told this story before but it helps to illustrate the deadly seriousness of consequences vs intention...

A junior leval Yudansha was constantly told by his Sensei ( Who has since left the U.S.) that his Aikido practice would make him "invincible". One night he went out with his wife to dinner...He got in an argument with a couple of men over a parking spot. According to those present He did everything right...Tried to de-escalate the situation while maintaining MAAI He appeared confident his practice would help him resolve the conflict. One of the two men got close enough to punch him in the face He fell and his head hit the curb... and he died right there...I am sure the man who hit him had no intention of killing him but there you have it. You don't know what is going to happen when you hit someone. ..

In the few times I have had to use Aikido in a physical fight I reacted the way I was taught which is to end the fight the moment it started. In one case my experiance percieved the escalation before the dude was able to strike. I hit hard and do not hold anything back... In another case my Atemi was countered which lead to an elbow strike to the ribs and Kiminage and the dude fell hard but he got up and bailed...On another occasion I was in tight quarters and this dude got crazy eyes closed the distance and I saw the punch coming... I entered and without thinking executed Iriminage starting from his solar plexus right up to his chin and he fell hard on his back hit his head and it knocked him out. I was lucky in those cases that I did not seriously hurt someone considering what happened to them.

At the moment of contact out there you must fully commit That is if you practice Aikido as a Martial Art...

Otherwise as Lynn alluded to... you better have a backup gun or something and know how to use it.

William Hazen

[Joseph Madden]

Well said William.

[Aikibu]

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: If someones dies as a result of my actions, it's not aikido. As far as I know aikido does not have any killing moves. Would I uses aikido techniques and skills to set up a killing move? Yes.

I've had this discussion many times online, with my friends and family. Aside from the moral issues and the endless possible scenarios, (what if this, and what if that) I think it is important to decide, today, if you are able to kill someone and in what circumstances.

Example: Two people try to car-jack me while my two sons are in the back seat. Yes, without hesitation.

Interesting...Perhaps you should try to parse this logic a little bit more and see what you come up with. The question was would you kill someone using Aikido Not does Aikido have any killing moves (Which in fact it does in a sense...Every technique fully applied has the potential to seriously hurt someone.)

Bowing down to you. :)

William Hazen

[Amir Krause]

I agree with most here.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer :
1. Can't I find another, better, solution?
2. Would I even be successful???
3. Most Aikido techniques are not meant to kill, rather to injure. When trying to save self or loved one, I would use the technique most suitable to the momentary solution, and the most applicable and efficient variation of it I would be able to carry out in instinct.
If I would have time to think if the reprocusions of the technique, and choose it, than most likely I am not under any imminent threat and it is not S.D. at all.

Amir

[Joseph Madden]

Good points Amir.

[Roman Kremianski]

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

[Pierre Kewcharoen]

Interesting...Perhaps you should try to parse this logic a little bit more and see what you come up with. The question was would you kill someone using Aikido Not does Aikido have any killing moves (Which in fact it does in a sense...Every technique fully applied has the potential to seriously hurt someone.)

Bowing down to you. :)

William Hazen

I believe that there are killing moves that exist in aikido. Its just not shown fully through practice or you will run out of training partners real quick. The potential is there and through practice you should be able to see it. Ex. Just throwing someone who doesn't know how to roll can break their neck and lead to death.

[Joseph Madden]

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

It depends what kind on aikido you happen to be studying Roman.
For instance, the majority of verifiable deaths caused by aikido in the
past 4 decades were in aikikai. Mind you, these were in a school settings and were probably a result of hazing rituals or overworked students being pushed to far. Aikido does have a rather violent history, regardless of the way its often portrayed. I know for a fact that many of my seniors in Yoshinkan could kill very easily. Drop by the dojo if you get the chance.

[Pierre Kewcharoen]

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

Some people can die easily whether it be a well placed punch or kick to the head. Or could lead to a long term death ex. damaging the lymph nodes. Even holding a choke too long after the person has passed out.

[Will Prusner]

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

hee hee

[Pierre Kewcharoen]

hee hee

Will has killed many of people in his lifetime.;)

[Will Prusner]

Will has killed many of people in his lifetime.;)

Certainly not!

I just appreciate a good taunt.

Back on the topic: It's not my place to decide when any living creature's existence should end. I'm just too ignorant to make decisions like that. I'll leave those tough decisions up to the Kami or something. I do feel confident making the decision to preserve my own existence, and the existences of those who I love who can't defend themselves, it would be irresponsible on my part to do otherwise. The way I understand the Aikido take on this situation is thus: If a person is attacking me unprovoked, then he is obviously a sick individual, as healthy people do not go around committing acts of unprovoked violence. If he's a sick person, it's not neccesarily his fault that he is that way. How would I be helping this sick individual by hurting or killing him, or for that matter, even allowing him to get hurt, or to hurt himself. I should protect this obviously already damaged person from any further harm. Will it be beneficial to him to allow him to bounce his head off of a curb or a parking bumper? No. I must do everything in my power to keep him from harm or I am allowing my baser self to take control and act as low as I am perceiving his initial action to be. I don't go into a cancer ward and start beating people up because I find cancer dangerous and intolerable. It amounts to about the same in my mind.

[jonreading]

I should not even respond, but it's like a moth drawn to light...

The semantics of the questions are wrong. "Your attacker will either kill you, or die trying to kill you; do you fight back?" The answer [I hope] for us is, "I will fight." Whether the fight concludes in actual death, or ceases short of death, is irrevlevant. If you choose not to fight, then you do not have a fighting spirit.

The spirit of the question is wherein lies the answer. "Are you committed to action that may result in death?" This is where we get uncomfortable. We cannot commit 100% to something that might kill someone, so we change our answer to, "No, I would look for any other way not to kill..." blah, blah, blah. We cannot say, "I am committed to my action, regardless of the conclusion," because we are not. We then hide behind various and sundry excuses for why we shouldn't kill, don't have to kill, shouldn't be attacked, etc.

We are either committed 100% to our actions and spirit, or we are working on committing ourselves through training. Obviously, a life/death situiation is an extreme scenario, but our answers tell us where our committment lies. That is why we answer this question with a limitation, " I am commited to breaking my attacker's arm;" "I am committed to running away;" "I am committed to asking my attacker if there is another way to resolve the conflict." Our limitation tells us where our committment lies, and where our training has taken us.

So the question is one that evaluates our committment to action. I remember a old story about a WWII paratrooper would refused to jump out of a plane. After a short conversation with his superior, the trooper changed his mind. When asked why the change, the tropper replied, "I told Sergeant I might die if I jumped. Sergeant told me that I might die if I jumped out of the plane, but he also said that if I didn't, he would surely kill me."

It continues to pain me to see aikido people give up on the validity of aikido as a martial art. Your aikido may not be lethal, but I know several good aikidoka who are lethal.

[Will Prusner]

"Are you committed to action that may result in death?"

No. I am committed to action that may preserve my life.

[jason jordan]

.

Long Answer: If someones dies as a result of my actions, it's not aikido. As far as I know aikido does not have any killing moves. hesitation.

Words of wisdom from O'Sensei when training

"Aikido can determine life or death with a single blow, therefore when training observe the instructions of the instructor, and do not engage in contests of strength."

I know everyone has their interpretation of aikido, and viewing this particular question along with others like it really make me wonder why people study Martial Arts, Budo, or even aikido.

I train to better myself yes, but I train because "My understanding" of protection, or self-defense, Aikido is that I have the ability to respond correctly to the situations that I may face.

I study so that I don't have to kill, but by training diligently and sincerely everyday I know if I have to, "God forbid" I will kill the man trying to kill me or others. Aikido does have within it's everyday training the ability to end a life.

I mean no disrespect to anyone and I may get a couple of responses from people ripping me another but hole.

But I am tired of seeing the "Jedi style Aikido"
I am tired of seeing people play aikidoka, and not really training. Aikido is not some dance, with people stroking their aiki-egos "And yes there are huge ego's within the ranks of aikido.

It is my belief "My Belief" that as an aikidoka I should be peacful, loving, kind to all, and do my best to in love reconcile any one who may ignorantly attack me. But I also train everyday like my life or someone else's will depend on how I train.

"The greater the martial artist, the greater the peace-maker"

Again, I don't mean any offense and I will retreat back into my hiding place.

Just venting.:sorry:

[Joseph Madden]

Jason & Jon,
What excellent well rounded answers to a difficult question. As my sensei says on the rare occasions that he gets philosophical, "Turning the other cheek is an admirable trait, but one that I choose not to follow". If you see a loved one in front of you about to be raped or worse, are you going to question what technique to use, where the attacker is coming from, are you going to question his or her motive, or are you going to commit yourself body and spirit to a resolution which may seem "uncivilized" by some.

[Aikibu]

Words of wisdom from O'Sensei when training

"Aikido can determine life or death with a single blow, therefore when training observe the instructions of the instructor, and do not engage in contests of strength."

I know everyone has their interpretation of aikido, and viewing this particular question along with others like it really make me wonder why people study Martial Arts, Budo, or even aikido.

I train to better myself yes, but I train because "My understanding" of protection, or self-defense, Aikido is that I have the ability to respond correctly to the situations that I may face.

I study so that I don't have to kill, but by training diligently and sincerely everyday I know if I have to, "God forbid" I will kill the man trying to kill me or others. Aikido does have within it's everyday training the ability to end a life.

I mean no disrespect to anyone and I may get a couple of responses from people ripping me another but hole.

But I am tired of seeing the "Jedi style Aikido"
I am tired of seeing people play aikidoka, and not really training. Aikido is not some dance, with people stroking their aiki-egos "And yes there are huge ego's within the ranks of aikido.

It is my belief "My Belief" that as an aikidoka I should be peacful, loving, kind to all, and do my best to in love reconcile any one who may ignorantly attack me. But I also train everyday like my life or someone else's will depend on how I train.

"The greater the martial artist, the greater the peace-maker"

Again, I don't mean any offense and I will retreat back into my hiding place.

Just venting.:sorry:

Amen....Preaching to the Choir Brother. :)

Don't hide for too long.

William Hazen

[Ron Tisdale]

Jon Reading, thanks for that post!

Best,
Ron

[stan baker]

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

that is true it sounds like you have well rounded experience

stan

[Aikibu]

I should not even respond, but it's like a moth drawn to light...

The semantics of the questions are wrong. "Your attacker will either kill you, or die trying to kill you; do you fight back?" The answer [I hope] for us is, "I will fight." Whether the fight concludes in actual death, or ceases short of death, is irrevlevant. If you choose not to fight, then you do not have a fighting spirit.

The spirit of the question is wherein lies the answer. "Are you committed to action that may result in death?" This is where we get uncomfortable. We cannot commit 100% to something that might kill someone, so we change our answer to, "No, I would look for any other way not to kill..." blah, blah, blah. We cannot say, "I am committed to my action, regardless of the conclusion," because we are not. We then hide behind various and sundry excuses for why we shouldn't kill, don't have to kill, shouldn't be attacked, etc.

We are either committed 100% to our actions and spirit, or we are working on committing ourselves through training. Obviously, a life/death situiation is an extreme scenario, but our answers tell us where our committment lies. That is why we answer this question with a limitation, " I am commited to breaking my attacker's arm;" "I am committed to running away;" "I am committed to asking my attacker if there is another way to resolve the conflict." Our limitation tells us where our committment lies, and where our training has taken us.

So the question is one that evaluates our committment to action. I remember a old story about a WWII paratrooper would refused to jump out of a plane. After a short conversation with his superior, the trooper changed his mind. When asked why the change, the tropper replied, "I told Sergeant I might die if I jumped. Sergeant told me that I might die if I jumped out of the plane, but he also said that if I didn't, he would surely kill me."

It continues to pain me to see aikido people give up on the validity of aikido as a martial art. Your aikido may not be lethal, but I know several good aikidoka who are lethal.

Another great post....Thank you. This "commitment" is an important part of the Martial Spirit of Aikido...

William Hazen

[Hardware]

This is a largely moot discussion contingent on very rare circumstances.

That said, given the right situation I would use whatever technique(s) fit the threat/attack/etc. If it results in fatal injuries to the attacker(s), then so be it.

Almost any Aikido technique could cause grievous bodily harm or death depending on the speed and momentum of the attacker and the physical environment.

Imagine someone sweeping in quickly in with a knife - the Aikidoka counters with a well executed shiho nage - the adrenaline is pumping and the attacker doesn't know how to fall backwards properly - and all this occurs on a cement surface. There's a pretty good chance the attacker will sustain serious injuries to the back of his head.

[crbateman]

I'm not sure that I can think of a situation where killing is the only option. I'm certain that I would be willing to do great harm to protect myself or someone else, but I'd like to think that the finality of taking a life would not realistically be necessary. And I think if I had to do it, the manner would not be particularly aiki in nature. In a lethal scenario, the attacker's problems end if he is killed, but those of the defender are just beginning...

[Ron Tisdale]

Imagine someone sweeping in quickly in with a knife - the Aikidoka counters with a well executed shiho nage -

Imagine if you will, the skilled knife fighter filleting the aikidoka and serving him for dinner....

In my best Rod Serling voice...

B,
R :D

[SeiserL]

It continues to pain me to see aikido people give up on the validity of aikido as a martial art. Your aikido may not be lethal, but I know several good aikidoka who are lethal.
Osu,
Kindred spirit.
Its the person, not the art.
Rei, Domo.

[Joseph Madden]

Imagine if you will, the skilled knife fighter filleting the aikidoka and serving him for dinner....

In my best Rod Serling voice...

B,
R :D

You may be right Ron. If I saw the way he or she were handling that knife, I'd think about other options. This is why it is important to train in certain other "arts".

[Kevin Leavitt]

Jon Reading wrote:

We are either committed 100% to our actions and spirit, or we are working on committing ourselves through training. Obviously, a life/death situiation is an extreme scenario, but our answers tell us where our committment lies. That is why we answer this question with a limitation, " I am commited to breaking my attacker's arm;" "I am committed to running away;" "I am committed to asking my attacker if there is another way to resolve the conflict." Our limitation tells us where our committment lies, and where our training has taken us.


Good post Jon!

Level of committment is predicated on Choice.

That is, how much ability to you have to control the situation.

The gap between stimulus and response....is Choice.

Sometimes we have it sometimes not.

Choice makes all the difference in the world.

It is a romantic notion I find, mainly iwthin budo arts, that we assume that we have choice always in reality.

Sure we the whole reason for us training is to expand the gap and to give us skills which in theory gives us more choice.

But in reality...that is a completely different animal!

So, if I have choice..well then of course not...I would not kill someone!

If I have no choice...two outcomes. Either I die, or the other dies....

So therein, lie the paradox!

At what point do you dilineate between choice or no choice?

What point do you commit to taken lethal action?

I think it hippocritical, or at best ignorant to think that we can unequivocally say that we would not kill or be a participant in death or killing.

One perspective assumes we have that choice that we can make the decision...always.

The other assumes that we don't.

It just isn't this easy!

Thanks!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Clark Bateman wrote:
I'm not sure that I can think of a situation where killing is the only option. I'm certain that I would be willing to do great harm to protect myself or someone else, but I'd like to think that the finality of taking a life would not realistically be necessary. And I think if I had to do it, the manner would not be particularly aiki in nature. In a lethal scenario, the attacker's problems end if he is killed, but those of the defender are just beginning...

Again, a complex subject at best!

I have trained most of my adult life as an Infantrymen. One thing that I have focused on is honing my physical and mental responses to understand the conditions, situations, and reflexes under which I would make a decision to employ lethal force.

The realty of it is this. There are certain conditions that must exist within the situation/environment AND the ability.

In all cases that I have rehearsed time and time again....it is a split second, instantaneous decision to employ it. You pull the trigger, commit the knife, or push the button, or commit the attack with the INTENT and past the point of no return.

You MUST completely understand and have thought through these situations because you simply do not have the time to meditate on them.

It is a reflex. You either do it or you don't. It is that instantaneous!

So, the big point of my training in the military has centered around developing this.

I think this is a big part of budo and the discovery that takes place as we train.

If you are training and do not believe that you may have to make this choice....I don't really understand why you would train??

You have already predetermined course of action, and there really is no need to develop any further skill!

This is why I find it interesting that people will say that they would not kill...ever,

[Kevin Leavitt]

Roman wrote:

Killing people is kinda hard.I doubt many Aikidoka are even physically capable of it.

Just about everyone is physically capable of killing given the correct conditions/situation/weapon etc. If you can mentally process it, you are capable of doing it! There is always a way!

The real issue is most people are confused about the conditions/situations in which they might do it...IF a BIIIG IF...they had the tools/ability to do it!

What are the triggers? What are the conditions? What emotional state? How do I prepare myself? Am I willing to sacrifice my life?

Lots and lots of issues surround this and reaching an understanding of yourself and this issue.

I think this is a core reason why we study budo...to understand it, is to understand peace and harmony.

It is a paradox for sure!

[Marc Abrams]

George Ledyard put in nicely when he said that Aikido teaches us how not to fight. The ability to sense what is around you and move in a manner that does not create the situations that result in a fight is a high level skill. That does not mean that we may not find ourselves in a situation where that is not an option.

Kevin so eloquently described that condition that we train for. In the moment there needs to be "mu shin." If our harmonized connection with the attacker results in an action in which the attacker dies, that is simply what happened. We did not go into that moment looking to do harm. We simply seek to be in the moment to move and act in a manner that preserves life. That means our life first. We do not seek to act violently to intentionally hurt the other person. It would be ignorant to not believe that what we train to do would lead to such an outcome. It would be inauthentic to act in an less than 100% manner because of some fear that we might hurt the other person.

Unfortunately, we live in a world with a lot of sick and amoral people who would not think twice about killing us for what may or not be in our wallets. We do not look to hunt these people down. We do not look to test ourselves by seeking them out either. We do not hunker down in our gated worlds to try and pretend that they are not there. We work to make our world around us as peaceful and as beautiful as possible. We train to insure that we are still around to enjoy it with the one's we love. If that means that somebody died because of an attempt to seriously harm me, then that simply is the preferred outcome, as opposed to having my loved ones throw dirt on top of my coffin.

We all have the potential within us to kill another person. I can only hope that if it is ever to come to pass, that it was to preserve life.

Marc Abrams

[crbateman]

You MUST completely understand and have thought through these situations because you simply do not have the time to meditate on them.

It is a reflex. You either do it or you don't. It is that instantaneous!
But it still is a decision. You just said it yourself:
In all cases that I have rehearsed time and time again....it is a split second, instantaneous decision to employ it.
And an infantryman has by necessity a different agenda than "man on the street". All I'm saying is that I would have to think, however quickly, about alternatives, or suffer the moral consequences if I did not. Cops (and soldiers) are commonly faced with this dilemma, and many grapple with the paradox and suffer terribly their entire lives. Outside the heat of the moment, every one of them probably wished they had found an alternative.
This is why I find it interesting that people will say that they would not kill...ever,
I certainly would not say that, as I'm sure I could, but it wouldn't be my first choice, and I'm not the slightest bit embarrassed to admit that.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Clark, I think we agree on most points. Probably more semantics.

With most of the ROE that is in place with both Military and Police, killing is not your first option or your first choice. You always try to find other options both tactically and strategically. Everyone I know always wishes they had other options.

My whole point, which I probably did not make very clear in my garbled post is just that. It is important to think about and understand as much as possible when you must "pull the trigger" on deadly force. You always restrain it to the last possible split second that you feel you can no longer not use it.

If this were not the case, war and fighting would be easy...we could just use force whenever we felt threatened with out discrimination!

There is no difference I think for the civilian. Yes, the circumstances surrounding how they ended up in a conflict or engagement might differ. However once in the situation, they must recognize and accept that they are a situation, willingly or not...and then make the decision that they feel they must make.

It takes basically three things: Capacity, ability, and the situation. Civilian, military or Police...there is no difference I believe in the core of it all.

We all have the capacity. We may have different abilities. Police/Military have guns, training, and maybe some foreshadowing of things to come that cause them to be more prepared.

The situations may also be different. Some of us may live in safe suburbs, others in violent inner cities, and some of us may have jobs like police and military that dictate the situation.

At the moment of decision though...I don't think there is any difference!

I too am not embarrassed to admit that it is not my first choice...ever. I only hope that I have the skill, time, and control at the time that I have to use deadly force to make the right choice!

[xuzen]

Xu,
Don't you think using ushiro nage against a person, say so their head hits the concrete hard enough that it kills them would be an effective killing technique. And also, why would you be charged with pre-meditated murder in such a case?

Joseph,

I do not doubt that if the above circumstances were to occur, the uke may be fatally injured. However, I argue that ushiro-nage per se is not a fatal technique.

Just like a simple Deashi Harai (leg trip/sweep) is not a fatal technique per se. But if the circumstances that the uke were to fall down on a hard rocky surface and subsequently broke his neck and died, it is purely circumstantial.

Joseph, when I heard about killing techniques, I am thinking about the fabled T3H D34DLY (TM) dim-mak, one punch kill etc. Looking back at the years of aikido training I had done, I was never taught any of these. Hence my earlier assertion, on where does some of you guys learn these T3H D34DLY (TM) stuff.

Boon.

[jason jordan]

This post makes me think of a story I was told by one of my students. It's a real life story and the details may be a bit twisted but I will do my best to keep it accurate as told to me.

A man sleeping in bed with his wife one night hears someone entering their house. He goes to find out what is going on, only to find a man wielding a knife at him. The criminal (using a knife) ties the man up and rapes his wife while the husband watches, beats her up and leaves her for dead and then beats and kills the husband. Again the criminal left the wife for dead but she did not die.

My question is this: wouldn't it have not been better for the husband to at least try to defend himself and the wife? Or at least allow for the wife to escape even if it did cost him his life?

I think the "What if's" should be in our minds when we train.

What if that were me?
What might I do?
What would I want to do?

And train your body, spirit and mind accordingly.

God bless and good night. I pray that none of us have to face these situations, and I pray that God would especially keep us safe during the holiday seasons and the days afterwards as well.

Sincerely
Jjo:D

[crbateman]

Civilian, military or Police...there is no difference I believe in the core of it all.I can't totally agree with this statement. LE and military have the luxury, if you can call it that, of entitlement, in that the possible use of deadly force is acknowledged as "coming with the territory", as well as a chain of command within their systems that inherits some of the responsibility for their actions. A civilian does not have this. Nor does he necessarily have the focused and proper training to use arbitrary judgment as to whether or not to take a life. That is certainly not required learning in the majority of dojos I have been exposed to. Therefore, the civilian must look to his own moral compass in the midst of a chaotic event, and it will certainly lead to more frequent occurrences of hesitation or incorrect decisions than would happen with a "professional" budoka acting within the purview of his office. And a civilian alone will have to bear the consequences if judgment is flawed. There is no impunity whatsoever. Hopefully, the results work out similarly, but the mechanism is different, so I think it would be presumptuous to say there's no difference. Otherwise, I think we can agree on most of it.

[senshincenter]

I do not doubt that if the above circumstances were to occur, the uke may be fatally injured. However, I argue that ushiro-nage per se is not a fatal technique.

The above made me think...

I'm not sure how relative it is here, but maybe some folks might find this fact interesting:

In California, if you punch or kick someone (say, one or two times), and you are not covered by any self-defense issues, you are in violation of penal code 242 - battery, a misdemeanor. If you throw them, once, or twice, you are in violation of penal code 245 - assault with a deadly weapon, a felony.

It seems the law, out here at least, recognizes what many aikidoka all over the world may not - that throwing someone has much greater potential for causing serious bodily injury or death than striking someone.

fwiw,
d

[roadster]

Perhaps. On the same token, it is a misdemeanor to keep a loaded unregistered firearm on your person. It is a felony to keep a batton on your person unless you have a license for it.

Wacky California laws. :crazy:

[senshincenter]

True, but the main point was that the law variation denotes the tendency to cause serious bodily injury or death in throwing and not in striking. This (i.e. seirous bodily injury or death) isn't so applicable to pc 12020 - as there are other issues at work marking felony from misdemeanor when it comes to weapons possession.

And, yes, I would agree, California is whacky.

[xuzen]

True, but the main point was that the law variation denotes the tendency to cause serious bodily injury or death in throwing and not in striking. This (i.e. seirous bodily injury or death) isn't so applicable to pc 12020 - as there are other issues at work marking felony from misdemeanor when it comes to weapons possession.

And, yes, I would agree, California is whacky.

You have a Austrian born' ed former body-builder, ex-Hollywood actor as Governor. :D

Boon.

[Roman Kremianski]

I only dropped that comment 'cause I knew people would reply with smartass comments about how hardass the old skool guys used to be or how killing people might actually be quite easy. Most of us have thankfully never killed anyone in an unarmed situation, and will most likely never know how possible or impossible it really is, regardless of what you practiced in a dojo.

It's great to live in a time where killing is no longer a necessary part of life.

Don't get me mixed up with accidental deaths. I know how people can die. In my last year of highschool, one of our guys took a kick to the head in a football game against another school, and his life ended there. This is not an example I am talking about here.

[xuzen]

The above made me think...

I'm not sure how relative it is here, but maybe some folks might find this fact interesting:

In California, if you punch or kick someone (say, one or two times), and you are not covered by any self-defense issues, you are in violation of penal code 242 - battery, a misdemeanor. If you throw them, once, or twice, you are in violation of penal code 245 - assault with a deadly weapon, a felony.

It seems the law, out here at least, recognizes what many aikidoka all over the world may not - that throwing someone has much greater potential for causing serious bodily injury or death than striking someone.

fwiw,
d

Just a personal nuances... I' d notice average macho guys are OK with receiving punches to their gut and withstanding the said punch as sign of his manliness.

But if you attempt to grab his lapel and try to do say for example Tai Otoshi... the same people will usually stiffen up and be petrified.

It could just be my own bias observation, does this correspond to other posters' observation as well?

The point I am trying to make, maybe the average Joe who are not ukemi trained are petrified with throws and hence in the eye of the law, throws are seen as more deadly?

Boon.

[Roman Kremianski]

But if you attempt to grab his lapel and try to do say for example Tai Otoshi... the same people will usually stiffen up and be petrified.

Fear of the unknown?

[Joseph Madden]

Joseph,

I do not doubt that if the above circumstances were to occur, the uke may be fatally injured. However, I argue that ushiro-nage per se is not a fatal technique.

Just like a simple Deashi Harai (leg trip/sweep) is not a fatal technique per se. But if the circumstances that the uke were to fall down on a hard rocky surface and subsequently broke his neck and died, it is purely circumstantial.

Joseph, when I heard about killing techniques, I am thinking about the fabled T3H D34DLY (TM) dim-mak, one punch kill etc. Looking back at the years of aikido training I had done, I was never taught any of these. Hence my earlier assertion, on where does some of you guys learn these T3H D34DLY (TM) stuff.

Boon.

I have been taught these techniques Xu, and I could teach them to you. But then.... I'd have to kill you.

OSU

[Joseph Madden]

Off topic for a moment.This just in. According to MANswers, you chances of dying while FISHING are great than boxing, skydiving or football (although I would argue that fishing is not really a sport but an activity of leisure, like checkers.... only with bait).

[Will Prusner]

(although I would argue that fishing is not really a sport but an activity of leisure, like checkers.... only with bait).

Checkers isn't a sport? Man, the other guys on the team are gonna be so bummed...:D

[Rupert Atkinson]

How you train is how you fight. If you train to kill, and I suspect most of us don't, then you 'could' kill. If you don't train to kill, as I suspect most of us do, then we most likely could not kill even if we wanted to. The choice is not there - using Aikido. You might pick up a rock and whack him with it, but that would not be standard Aikido.

Think about it - most (not all I know, but most) Aikido is simply control and restraint type stuff. So, would you ask a cop, "Would you kill with your 'arm hold' if you had to?"

I think for most Aikidoka the choice is not there - how you train is how you fight.

... I do seem to die every lesson though ...

[Kevin Leavitt]

Clark Wrote:

Therefore, the civilian must look to his own moral compass in the midst of a chaotic event, and it will certainly lead to more frequent occurrences of hesitation or incorrect decisions than would happen with a "professional" budoka acting within the purview of his office. And a civilian alone will have to bear the consequences if judgment is flawed. There is no impunity whatsoever.

I can't speak for Police Officers since I am not one, but from a military perspective, the same moral compass and consequences apply if judgement is flawed.

What is different is the situation. Absolutely, Police and Military might have a different basis for Use of Deadly Force depending on the situation.

However, at the point of decision to employ or not employ
...the same thought process, moral compass, and consequences etc are all the same regardless. It is a human versus a human.

[Kevin Leavitt]

U.S. military action fall under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)/Geneva Conventions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war Gives a decent overview of the complexties.

Not to change the subject of the thread.....

But it is not correct that Police and Military have the luxury of impunity. Same basic concepts apply to them as to the general public.

Essentially on a individual soldier/police officer level, you cannot kill a person that is known to not be an immediate threat.

Obviously at a less personal and somewhat more strategic level, there are "targets" and "collateral damage".

However, I think this topic is more narrowly defined down to the individual level.

At this level each person must decide if the conditions and actions they choose are justified.

It is a big decision, a personal one. It is one in which your actions will be viewed either lawful or unlawful by society. It is one in which you must live with your actions based on your own internal values.

I will admit to you that I personally would not consider the legal ramifications of the law of whatever state, country, or what not. To me those are the most unimportant in me choosing the action that I make.

It is more important to me to take action based on whatever moral/value code I have chosen to live by personally.

I have resolved myself to live within and deal with the legal consequences after the fact.

Hopefully I have spent enough time through education, training, and spiritual development to process and reconcile all this prior to the event.

Hopefully the choice I make is in alignment with how the rest of society sees it.

If I do end up in jail or what not....well hopefully I can personally live with the choice I made...knowing deep inside that I made the right choice morally and spiritually!

Watch a "Man for all Seasons" if you want a good lesson on tough choices.

Personally I think this is what defines a warrior or a warrior mentality and separates them from the rest of the flock.

Those that have the capacity, the skill, and the courage to make the right choices in the face of adversity no matter how tough those choices may be.

[crbateman]

Kevin, you gotta stop misquoting me. I didn't say the LE and military have the "luxury of impunity". I said they had the "luxury of entitlement". That's different. That simply means that they may be expected to kill as an accepted function of their profession. A civilian does not have this to fall back on or ease his conscience. I used the term "impunity" in a different context, only to point out that a civilian does not share responsibility for his own actions with anyone, such as a command structure or implied obligation, but must instead answer for everything himself. It would be foolish to suggest that cops and military have NO liability, and I don't think I did that. They just have less, and are usually judged by those of their own kind.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Sorry did not mean to misquote you.

I am sure if we were having this conversation face to face that it would be easier for us to understand each other and work through this. As such, I think we are probably splitting hairs...but hey this is what aikiweb is for!

Anyway. I am a little sensitive to the inference that a "martial professional" can ease his conscience, absolve his actions, or fall back on to the "system" to accept responsibility or absorb "guilt".

This is why we have things such as PTSD.

I think were you and I are splitting hairs is here: Societal acceptance and justification vice Personal.

Yes, I agree, that there might be more latitude within the norms of a military/police situation.

If I killed someone in Iraq there might be less "red tape" that I'd have to go through than if I killed some one in house in the States. Absolutely.

This is why I was very specific about pointing out that the SITUTATION is different.

On an personal, spiritual, moral level though...the thought process, actions, decisions are EXACTLY the same.

Killing someone is killing someone. The karma of it is no different because of situatonal/societal parameters.

A Soldier is no less a human being or person than the next one.

This is why are having such a hard time with PSTD and what not.

Soldiers and police officers return home or return to duty and we say "well, it's Okay...it is a part of their job" and assume that they have the luxury of societal justification, when in fact they still struggle with the actions that they chose.

Again, I think face to face we'd be able to work this out and understand each others angle on the same issue.

Appreciate your patience and taking the time to discuss!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Clark,

Where I think the big difference between civilians and professionals in the area might be...is that Police/Military have accepted the fact that they might be put in a situation. They train for it, they have capacity, ability, and the are prepared for it. they fullly understand the triggers and conditions in which they would make those decisions.

AND the conditions of their employment is such that they have a higher probability than most that they might have to kill.

Civilians in many cases don't take the time to understand this topic. They ignore it, they live in delusion that they may be faced with such a decision, and when they are in a situation, they hesitate to make ANY decision at all because they cannot process what is happening...therefore, the decision is made for them without their consent or choice.

Over generalization I know!

I think a big point of Budo, at least philosophically is to train to be prepared to meet death one day...in whatever form it comes, and accept the actions you took in your life or in that moment.

[Ron Tisdale]

Anyway. I am a little sensitive to the inference that a "martial professional" can ease his conscience, absolve his actions, or fall back on to the "system" to accept responsibility or absorb "guilt".

I can understand the sensitivity, but at the same time, all I have to do is read the available material on the Abu Garib folks to know that that is exactly what often happens. People blame the command structure, the rules of engagement, the prevailing climate, other agencies/forces, add infinitum, to excuse morally depraved behavior.

Hmmm...no different from civillians, though, but they blame society, TV, the media, their parents...

Maybe you are right after all! :D

Best,
Ron

[Ron Tisdale]

Kevin, if the LEO / Military folks train for this stuff, then why the PTSD? I mean, if all this training is worth while?

Nice to see some usefull stuff come out of this topic...

Best,
Ron

[SeiserL]

if the LEO / Military folks train for this stuff, then why the PTSD? I mean, if all this training is worth while?
IMHO, the training teaches one how to do it, not how to live with it.
And yes, the training is worthwhile, it keeps one alive.

[Ron Tisdale]

True Lynn, True.

It does seem that often, though, coming out alive on the other end is only half the battle. Coming out intact is a whole other thing.

Best,
Ron (qualifier: I have no experience in this area, so what I think really doesn't matter much)

[Fred Little]

Kevin, if the LEO / Military folks train for this stuff, then why the PTSD? I mean, if all this training is worth while?

Nice to see some usefull stuff come out of this topic...

Best,
Ron

Not that I'm Kevin, who speaks quite well for himself, but the answer is pretty simple:

Prevention where possible. Where prevention fails, harm reduction and damage mitigation.

Best,

FL

[Kevin Leavitt]

I knew some one when bring up Abu Garib. It was May Lai, or Mai Lai in Vietnam. Same core issue, different war.

None of my fellow soldiers condone what was done for sure.

I agree individuals were responsible for there actions. That is always the case, hence why I am so adamant about being sensitive about the subject.

Why I am so dedicated to the combatives program we have.

Why it is important to teach and Enforce Army Value to our soldiers.

Why it is important that we teach our children to be accountable and responsible.

Why we should not allow institutions to take over where our own personal values should be our guiding compass.

Alot of what we saw on trial in the media was the instituion, and rightfully so. Leaders have a responsibilty to set the CONDITIONS and govern the SITUATION. They have to establish the ENVIRONMENT, CONTROL MEASURES, and supervise. So, the institution should have been on trial and those that failed to do that should have paid the price for their failures.

Okay, back to the personal level.

Lets focus on the core of those soldiers that committed those acts. How were they suffering? How much abuse did they face as children, How much did they learn their values from a system? Our schools, there parents? At their core...did they deep down inside know they were doing wrong....yet choose to ignore their own viseral feelings?

How much did they blindly accept from their peers and leaders? Why did they NOT personally question the system?

I certainly don't expect anyone to answer these questions. The answers we cannot know nor are they important now!

How much are they personally suffering because the regret the decision they made during stressful and confusing times, that they did not have the proper training or moral compass to guide them?

Their actions were not excusable as human beings or soldiers.

So this is a good example, even though it does not involve killing. Killing can take place in so many ways. Killing the physical as well as killing the spirit.

[Kevin Leavitt]

On the PTSD topic. Good question Ron. Good answer Lynn! ( I was waiting for you to chime in!) :)

Lynn answered it. I really think as Cliche as it sounds, Musashi was on to something about preparing for war, killing and dying.,

If you look at the military institution as a reflection of budo in action, then you see an institution that considers the whole soldier, family and all.

We are learning many lessons such as at Walter Reed that has been in the news. Finding new areas of how we are not addressing the full spectrum of the situation.

You must prepare to lead a full life and consider the whole of the warrior when preparing him/her to go to war and fight (kill).

This is the point of the topic I think. Killing is not an individual act that is done only at the point of the decision. It is one that affect the whole.

So, back to the PTSD issue. Why do some end up with it and some don't? I don't know as I am not a Pyschologist.

I think some of it has to do with an abilty to repress and ignore or reframe the events.

I think some of it has to do with acceptance.

I think alot has to do with preparation and reaching a deep understanding of SELF.

I am sure that those that have killed are never "whole" again, in the way that they were prior to the event. I think those that accept it and reach a "degree" of peace within themselves are able to function within society on a "normal" basis.

Those that don't accept it, have "issues"....PTSD.

It is a complicated subject for sure.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Fred Little wrote:

Not that I'm Kevin, who speaks quite well for himself, but the answer is pretty simple:

Prevention where possible. Where prevention fails, harm reduction and damage mitigation.


Not sure I speak quite well, but thanks!

Yes, Macroscopically, there is always a spectrum of use of force from non-action to Action.

One thing we do in the military today is focus more on escalation of force than we used to. I think we had this wrong for many years and we are fixing it.

Sorry to talk so much about the military, but it is my frame of reference and a really, really good reflection of the practices of Budo and the topic of Killing,

In Budo, aikido, especially, I think this is really what we are focusing on Escalation of Force (EOF). the dance that we call Aikido, Ma ai, irimi/tenkan, and resolution...is the study of the spectrum of EOF.

From no-action (victim maybe?) to action (non-victim).

We really don't study no-action do we? :)

So we focus on the spectrum of action from as subtle as body language, seeking to understand the whole of nage, to as bold as a "killing blow". We even study use of "Pre-emptive Strike (r)".

Against this spectrum of EOF we apply morals, values etc...hence why we have most of our threads!

Therefore at the base really what the question of "would you kill someone using Aikido if you had to" boils down to, is one that was astutely pointed out in the first couple of post.

It is a loaded question. "kill someone with aikido".....if you had to. Assumes you had to (no choice).

I equate this to the Zen Koan. "Do no harm...Stop Harm!"

[Ron Tisdale]

Thanks for the replies Kevin.

Please know that you guys and gals have my utmost and undying respect.

Best,
Ron

[Paul Sanderson-Cimino]

I'd like to step in one more time to say that this thread is inherently silly.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Paul, you wrote the following to which you reference:
Forgive my saying so, but I think this is a silly question, given:

1) The odds of running into a life or death violent encounter
2) The odds of gaining dominance in such an encounter (which you presumably would not be instigating)
3) The odds of doing so using aikido.

To be blunt, I think most of us could not fight our ways out of paper bags. This is a question to worry about when most of us aikidoka actually learn how to be competent martial artists. On that magical day, maybe we can devote a few hours of our time to worrying about such things.

But really, this is so far above our current level on the hierarchy of needs that it seems pointless to discuss.

Superfically and pragmatically, I agree with your point as it relates on the hierarchy of needs as it relates to reality and reality based scenarios.

If you do a search on my some of my older post I will argue that aikido is a very poor delivery mechanism for rote self defense or as a mechanism for training the literal act of employing lethal force. We spend hours and thousands of dollars training on stuff that is really not worthwile in that area. You'd be better off going to a local gun club, or knife fighting club (if they exsisted), or learning how to use ordinary objects as lethal weapons...anything other than aikido!

But, the question I think, it not so much from a point of order of magnitude or hierarchy, but one of a philosophical, core, holistic point....the very reason we "should" study budo.

I don't understand why anyone would waste there time with this stuff if...just because they like to roll around....buy a trampoline and put it in your backyard...THAT is fun!

I don't think it is of the nature of odds, percentages, or situations...but one of completeness of spirit.

There are several ways to kill, we can kill the physical or we can kill the spiritual (ethos/pathos) and all that good stuff!

[Joseph Madden]

Kevin,
Thanks greatly for the insight into the mind of a professional warrior (if I may be permitted to use that term). Perhaps I should have stated the question as "If you had no other choice, would you use aikido.......
As someone once said..."Prepare for war, pray for peace". It makes one ponder the "what ifs" of a society. If I can be retrospective for a moment. At the turning of the new millennium, I was asked to spend New Years Eve at the house of some very good friends. I was asked to be there because one of the friends stated to me that if anything was to go wrong (everyone remembers the Y2K scare) he knew that I wouldn't hesitate to do certain things if the chips were down. He is licensed to carry and train in Canada as well as several US states. I knew that he had what was essentially an armory in his house, including edged weapons. It frightened me at first, but only for a moment. I was very, very happy that Y2K was only a scare.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Unfortunately, same logic. "if you had no the choice" Implies "no choice".

This is salient to the whole logic.

What is key is choice..either you have it or you don't. If you have choice...then you can choose to kill or not kill.

I think what you are saying is this. Morally if killing is jusitifiable, that is you or society see that the act you commit saves another life/lives and immediately prevents a greater harm (death of another innocent person/persons). Then would you do it? IF, the only 4 actions were:

1. no action-you or others die (innocent).
2. Non-lethal action- you or others STILL die.
3. You sacrifice your life for the greater good of other live (take the bullet).
4. Lethal Action- you or others LIVE.

Do I have that right?

I would submit that to take no action, would be unethical (non-aiki) what I would call the moral equivilant to a coward or sheep.

To take non-lethal action fully knowning that the end result would still result in death of others...well that is just plain sacrifice and stupid...not even noble.

to sacrifice yourself for the greater good of society because you saw no other means to resolve the situation...is pretty much darn near sainthood and the culmination of elimination of SELF...you achieved the full transmission of the lessons of AIKI! :)

To take action and Kill and to prevent further harm, well that is still within the spectrum of aiki for sure, and while you may have an aversion to killing, well remember...you had no choice right? To do so would be in conflict with yourself, but is an act of courage and compassion if done in the right state of mind. So it is aiki.

I don't like the phrase "prepare for war, pray for peace". You work for peace and you DO peace...it requires engagement and activity...you should prepare for peace even more strongly than you prepare for war!

I think if we did that and stopped praying (really it means "hope for", then we might get some were.

We need more budoka out there that are willing to stand up and do courageous acts of peace and to Kill War :)

It takes a whole society. No action does not mean pacifism!

[Shany]

saving the life of your attacker shows much greatness than actually taking life

[Joseph Madden]

Kevin,
Your absolutely right with regards to peace. Peace does not come from praying, but through hard work and determination. Only through our actions and not through those of a deity can we achieve peace. Also, with regards to the use of aikido as a lethal form of self defense it can only be proved, I believe, through course of action. And there are definitely some techniques in daito-ryu which can be lethal if properly applied.

[gregg block]

[QUOTE=Paul Sanderson-Cimino;195712]Forgive my saying so, but I think this is a silly question, given:
To be blunt, I think most of us could not fight our ways out of paper bags.







Speak for yourself. How sad for you though. my condolences

[SeiserL]

So, back to the PTSD issue. Why do some end up with it and some don't? I don't know as I am not a Pyschologist. I think some of it has to do with an abilty to repress and ignore or reframe the events. I think some of it has to do with acceptance. I think alot has to do with preparation and reaching a deep understanding of SELF. I am sure that those that have killed are never "whole" again, in the way that they were prior to the event. I think those that accept it and reach a "degree" of peace within themselves are able to function within society on a "normal" basis. Those that don't accept it, have "issues"....PTSD. It is a complicated subject for sure.
Compliments, you do very well.
Trauma changes you.
Killing is trauma.
Acceptance and reframing (never repression or ignoring) of what is/was without judgment. (You only judge if you've never been there.)
Who would want to be "normal" in this society? Beside, you can never go back to who you were before. wasn't "normal" before, certainly wasn't "normal" after. and definitely not "normal" now.
Not as complicated as people think, if you can think outside the safe civilian box society sleeps in because someone is standing watch over them (whether they know it, like it, or appreciate it).
Don't mind me, I'm just an old grunt.

[Nikopol]

Avoid rather than hurt.
Hurt rather than maim.
Maim rather than kill.

This teaching has been around for a long time.
The idea that you "have to" kill a human being is farcical and we do not need five pages of comments to understand that.

A little respect for the founder please.

[Guilty Spark]

Avoid rather than hurt.
Hurt rather than maim.
Maim rather than kill.

This teaching has been around for a long time.
The idea that you "have to" kill a human being is farcical and we do not need five pages of comments to understand that.

A little respect for the founder please.

Has the founder ever killed someone using martial arts?

[stelios]

I was trained to kill fast and efficiently long time ago. Today the reply to the question would be
No!
But I would probably do him some permanent damage (eyes, knee, elbow, spinal column).

[xuzen]

Has the founder ever killed someone using martial arts?

Grant,

If you are referirng to M. Ueshiba aka O' sensei aka The Founder (TM) then yes, he did kill someone using martial art.

It was in Manchuria/Manchukuo, he killed mountain bandits with

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a little samurai sword aka katana.
<whisper>Psst... don't think he called his art aikido yet at that time<whisper>

Boon.

[L. Camejo]

Great posts and terrific insights Kevin and Lynn. Extremely well said guys.

This thread has turned out to be most interesting. :)

Just a small thought on some comments regarding Aikido "technique" and whether there are techniques in (insert MA/style here) that "can kill" etc.

I'd say that killing has a lot less to do with technique and a hell of a lot more to do with the mindset and preparation of the person doing the killing.

As indicated before, if one has no choice and has prepared mentally and physically for the situation the answer (to kill or not) will be clear, the precise method may be quite secondary in that regard.

Imho.

LC:ai::ki:

[CarlRylander]

I think that Ueshiba would have killed, but avoided it to the utmost.

I think he once said: 'We would not go full out, otherwise we would kill them', or something like that.

I don't think that Paul Cimono's comment that most people on this forum 'couldn't fight their way out of paper bags' is very constructive!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Yes, I agree it has less to do with technique...more on mindset and prep.

Killing is pretty much a low tech, low skill process. Just look at the people we have in our prison systems. Most of them are not highly skilled, martial geniuses!

What is difficult is what we have been discussing. The skillfulness and wisdom of Choice, and recognizing what those choices may or may not be at the point of decision.

[Marc Abrams]

Many people remember General Patton for slapping the face of a soldier who had an acute stress reaction to combat. General Patton gave this situation serious reflection and made genuine efforts towards having his command structure actively look out for signs of these acute stress reactions and remove those soldiers from the front lines so they could the the help that they needed. In many ways, this was the beginning of a concerted effort to deal with the acute stress and later PTSD that developed from combat situations.

Over those many years since WWII, the military recognized that after a certain amount of time in combat positions, the odds of the soldiers coming down with acute stress reactions and developing PTSD increased dramatically. That played a role in the time frames that were used to rotate troops in and out of combat service. Those time frames were basically thrown out the door in this current cluster ****. The emerging results are disturbing to the mental health people who are treating a large number of soldiers for acute stress disorders and PTSD. An even more disturbing fact that was recently shown the "light of day" was the military's use of determining that the soldiers with those severe psychological problems had "pre-existing personality disorders" the precluded them from VA services, and keeping the real statistics artificially low.

It is sad that those people responsible for doing this to those who bravely volunteer to put themselves in harms way to serve our country and not held accountable for these actions. The long-term psychological consequences are already emerging. The tragedy is that these young men and women wear their scars on the inside, not getting the care, empathy and sympathy that they deserve. Their families and friends suffer as well.

We need to keep this in mind when we vote in November '08. We need an administration and congress that really care about our citizens.

Marc Abrams

[gdandscompserv]

Many people remember General Patton for slapping the face of a soldier who had an acute stress reaction to combat. General Patton gave this situation serious reflection and made genuine efforts towards having his command structure actively look out for signs of these acute stress reactions and remove those soldiers from the front lines so they could the the help that they needed. In many ways, this was the beginning of a concerted effort to deal with the acute stress and later PTSD that developed from combat situations.

Over those many years since WWII, the military recognized that after a certain amount of time in combat positions, the odds of the soldiers coming down with acute stress reactions and developing PTSD increased dramatically. That played a role in the time frames that were used to rotate troops in and out of combat service. Those time frames were basically thrown out the door in this current cluster ****. The emerging results are disturbing to the mental health people who are treating a large number of soldiers for acute stress disorders and PTSD. An even more disturbing fact that was recently shown the "light of day" was the military's use of determining that the soldiers with those severe psychological problems had "pre-existing personality disorders" the precluded them from VA services, and keeping the real statistics artificially low.

It is sad that those people responsible for doing this to those who bravely volunteer to put themselves in harms way to serve our country and not held accountable for these actions. The long-term psychological consequences are already emerging. The tragedy is that these young men and women wear their scars on the inside, not getting the care, empathy and sympathy that they deserve. Their families and friends suffer as well.

We need to keep this in mind when we vote in November '08. We need an administration and congress that really care about our citizens.

Marc Abrams
Marc,
I quoted you because I believe what you said is so very important. How dare we send these people to fight our wars and not give them the proper tools, equipment and care they need.

[mickeygelum]

Yes.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Guys...the thread is getting off track. Please don't discuss politics. I think it is good to use examples of things to discuss the core topic, but once we start talking about political policy and voting, we are on another subject!

Thanks.

[Aikibu]

Guys...the thread is getting off track. Please don't discuss politics. I think it is good to use examples of things to discuss the core topic, but once we start talking about political policy and voting, we are on another subject!

Thanks.

You're right Sir...However... If the "Policymakers" :D had been a dedicated Aikidoka then the discussions about policy would have been moot.

We are living in a very dangerous time and hence the fears of folks feed the desire to understand the need to kill to protect themselves...The Aikidoka who practices hard is an artist in the regard....Learning how to overcome ones own fears and protect the other is not a foolhardy persuit and requires complete dedication and focus.

Love takes more Courage than Fear and Hate

Which is the reason why I think O'Sensei is one of the bravest men to ever live considering he created Aikido during one of the most Martial/Militaristic periods in his country's history. They lopped of the heads of dissenters back in those days. :)

Here we are almost 70 years later with almost the same set of conditions and the same choices.

I will do everything in my power to protect life including as a very last resort taking one...I train hard almost everyday so I don't have to make that choice, and hopefully when the next Bozo throws down on me We'll both walk away and "ideally" have an understanding about each other we didn't have before he ending up on his back or with a sore appendage and me with the same. LOL

Otherwise this is what a culture of violence can lead to:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-surfer15dec15,0,6085600.story?coll=la-home-center

You can either be caught up in the fear that the world is a very violent dangerous place and mold your life around it or you can have the courage to overcome your fears by reaching out to the "other"

Seems folks are finally starting to get sick of the latter as a matter of "policy."

William Hazen

[Marc Abrams]

Kevin:

I agree and disagree with you. The thread was "off-topic for awhile, a lot if it was in a direction that you led it to. The military's policy towards longer deployment times, and the policy regarding "pre-existing personality disorders" have little to do with political parties, and politics. It had more to do with CYA and the "calculus of human lives." Your topic was bound to head in that direction because of the amount of "political guidance" by our leaders in the areas that you were discussing.

William:

Very moving commentary. The "leaders" of the politics of fear were the same characters who's own fears prevented them from serving our country many years ago. They have no real understanding of the value of life that people like Kevin have developed through real life experiences as opposed to theoretical believes and philosophies. OUr country desperately needs leaders who have the courage to love in the manner in which you described. Unfortunately, I think both major parties are devoid of that type of leader.

Marc Abrams

[Kevin Leavitt]

I have no issue using current events, poltics, and issues to discuss the topic as long as we stay focused on the original issue, which was dealing with killing on an individual level.

Yes, we do need to look at things macroscopically, consider societal perspective and all that and link it back to the individual and how those things affect the individual.

I agree with WIlliam Hazens comments about "authentic courage". I also agree that fear is the big motivating factor that our current implementation of policy is based on.

"the big scarey terrorist".

If we look back through history, there is always a boogey man for every major conflict. We give that boogey man a personality, a label, form an attachment to him and then we proceed to "Kill" him.

I am a firm believer that the only way we can really solve this problem is through Knowledge, Wisdom, Compassion. Once we have an authentic understanding of the boogeyman, we can find that there really is not much to fear, and we can resolve problems more skillfully.

I am a firm believer also, that this must be done on a humanistic level. That is, we must first come to grips with ourselves and our own personal demons, boogeyman, (fears).

Once we do this, we are able to see things more clearly, and courage is easy when you absolutely KNOW your actions are the right things to do!

I think budo is a great way to learn these things about yourself.

[Marc Abrams]

Kevin:

They say that sex sells products and fear sells politicians.

Knowledge, Wisdom, and Compassion. The core of personal integrity. Many people are not willing to experience the crucible of life which forges the integrity and character that we need so desperately in our leaders today. It is becoming harder for our society to instill this in our citizens. It is far easier to live in blissful ignorance. The classic book "The Underground Man" was written a long time ago, exploring the same dilemma that we face today. The boogey-men are frequently representative of that with which we cannot make peace with in ourselves, mixed in with an unhealthy dose of ignorance.

I am an old fan of the "MASH." One of my favorite episodes was where Colonel Potter told a wounded soldier who was mentally suffering watching the enemy that he shot die in a bed next to him that every soldier should be placed in a room with the "enemy" that they are about to kill for one hour. At the end of that hour, they could then have their weapons back and make the choice to kill one another.

There is easy access to the tools designed to kill, yet it is harder to instill the integrity of character necessary to make the decision to kill in order to preserve life. Budo should be one crucible that does help us develop the integrity of character necessary to make the right choice.

Marc Abrams

[Kevin Leavitt]

Marc,

I agree with the conclusions on your post. the only thing I have a comment on is the MASH example.

Of course, MASH, outside of the entertainment aspect was a social/polictical criticism directed at war and the casualties of war.

So, philosophically speaking the example you have would be an interesting experiment for sure!

However, the basic logic of it is flawed I think when you consider soldiers. Again, the key word is choice. I can speak on my own behalf as a solider, reflecting my personal ethics and those of the Laws of Armed Conflict, that I would consider it murder to sit in the same room with an "enemy" talk to him, and then give back weapons and then see if we would make the choice to kill each other. CHOICE.

When I enter to clear a building as a combatant, there is the SITUATION. It is unknown what lay there. There is the assumption that a deadly threat awaits. At the time you decide to pull the trigger to end the "enemy's" life, there is the assumption that he is a clear and immediate threat upon which there is no other way to mitigate that threat except with deadly forcce.

I do not have the luxury to get to know him, I do have the CHOICE to kill him or not. However the alternative to choose not to kill him is assumed to be my own or my fellow soldier's death.

So, you have to make up your mind concerning how you view Harm, or killing, and the justfication to do so, pretty darn quickly.

In the MASH example, i think the logic is an appeal to emotion, and a false one that gets people thinking in the wrong direction when we consider individual actions of killing.

Macroscopically, societal, and philosophically...yes....I agree. If we took time to understand the "enemy", then we might reach an understanding and harmony.

that said, your "enemy" may not have the same agenda in mind! As is such the case with many of the terrorist we face today.

Same with robbers, muggers etc. You simply may not have the time or choice to reason with, harmonize with, or get to know him on an interpersonal level.

He simply wants to use force, coercion, or bodily harm in attempt to control you to his benefit. He does not care that you give to the poor, work at the soup kitchen, or give boots to the homeless.

He has made up his mind that his actions are just, and that your life is simply not as valuable as his.

So, budo, I think, gives us the ability to see things for what they are. Helps us to understand ourselves, the nature of others (good and bad), and philosophically and sometimes physically...gives us tools to more skillfully make decisions to make the right Choices in the face of adversity...those that may require little or no thought on a active basis!

[charyuop]

I cannot say it clearly, I should be in the situation, but most likely not.
I got in few fights back in school years and never managed to hit back cause I hated hurting people, but of course my life was not in danger.
In the past Sensei had us work on a couple of techniques (don't know names) where you throw Uke grabbing the head and twisting it...kind of those moves where in movies people break necks from behind. I admit I felt very uneasy and scared in doing them, glad it is a long time he hasn't let us do them again. Just like as Uke by mistake I manage to hit in the face...for the next 3 or 4 attacks I can't give a full intent attack, but I still feel the fear of hitting again.

[Aikibu]

I have no issue using current events, poltics, and issues to discuss the topic as long as we stay focused on the original issue, which was dealing with killing on an individual level.

Yes, we do need to look at things macroscopically, consider societal perspective and all that and link it back to the individual and how those things affect the individual.

I agree with WIlliam Hazens comments about "authentic courage". I also agree that fear is the big motivating factor that our current implementation of policy is based on.

"the big scarey terrorist".

If we look back through history, there is always a boogey man for every major conflict. We give that boogey man a personality, a label, form an attachment to him and then we proceed to "Kill" him.

I am a firm believer that the only way we can really solve this problem is through Knowledge, Wisdom, Compassion. Once we have an authentic understanding of the boogeyman, we can find that there really is not much to fear, and we can resolve problems more skillfully.

I am a firm believer also, that this must be done on a humanistic level. That is, we must first come to grips with ourselves and our own personal demons, boogeyman, (fears).

Once we do this, we are able to see things more clearly, and courage is easy when you absolutely KNOW your actions are the right things to do!

I think budo is a great way to learn these things about yourself.

We Sir are in complete agreement and it's Officers like you that are our hope for the future...

Sua Sponte Sir,

William Hazen

[SeiserL]

IMHO, we all make choices and we all pay the consequences for those choices.
If training and forethought can be brought into the equation, the responses have a better chance of going in the direction of the training. Chance favors the prepared mind, conditioned response, and neuroplasticity.
Many choices need to be discussed and made way before one finds themselves in a situation that requires the action to be taken.
If you choose not to fight (or kill) you live with the consequence of that decision. If you choose to fight (and kill) you live with those consequences.
We each need to make the decision we can live with (because we will have to) and train in that direction.

[Marc Abrams]

Kevin:

I was speaking at a "Macroscopically, societal, and philosophically..."level (your words were well spoken). Colonel Potter also talked about putting the leaders of countries at war in an arena to fight it out amongst themselves. I think that we are basically on the same proverbial page.

O'Sensei spoke of how he believed that leaders misused budo for their own purposes. I am profoundly disturbed when the men and women who serve to defend our country are "misused" by our leaders. The casualties of war (those who have died, been wounded, or psychologically wounded) are great. If we ask these men and women to make those great sacrifices, then it should be for the right reasons. Killing another person to preserve life should be just as it is, to preserve life. Those that do live have to live with the legacies of what it took to preserve life. In many ways, that is a far greater task than to take life.

Marc Abrams

[Kevin Leavitt]

Marc, yes...I agree. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts and point of view.

It takes a whole country to fight a war, not less than 1%.

If I was granted one wish in the world, I think that wish would be to have everyone in it realize how closely everything is interconnected and related. That is, that we cannot disassociated or detach ourselves that which we do not like or want to face.

There are many ways to kill, and more than just the physical.

[Kevin Leavitt]

William,

Sua Sponte! RLTW! Hooah.

[SeiserL]

If I was granted one wish in the world, I think that wish would be to have everyone in it realize how closely everything is interconnected and related. That is, that we cannot disassociated or detach ourselves that which we do not like or want to face.

There are many ways to kill, and more than just the physical.
Agreed, and there are equally as many ways to be dead.

[Will Prusner]

Otherwise this is what a culture of violence can lead to:http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-surfer15dec15,0,6085600.story?coll=la-home-center


or this...

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i113/Birdsbeaks/images.jpg

[jonreading]

I have enjoyed reading this post. It has been one of the better reads on aikiakweb. I agree with Kevin that political commentary is probably a separate issue that may better better expressed on aother thread. We are discussing a complicated topic, which probably will only be clouded by adding new issues to the thread.

This thread has already matured beyond the original question, but maybe I can add some more comments...

The decision to end a life is a separate one from the committment to end a life. In chronological order, you must first decide to act, then commit to the action. Before you make a decision of any kind, you must first evaluate the actions from which you may choose. I have read through what [to me] is three separate issues which need to be unravelled from eachother.

Aikido teaches us to make better decisions. We learn techniques and train to provide more options from which to choose when making a decision. We practice the decision making process to accelerate our ability to choose correctly from the options presented in a given situation. Through training, we become confident in our ability to make and execute decisions correctly, and that empowers us to commit ourselves to executing those decisions.

We are speficially discussing an extreme decision to take a life. The moral and personal repurcussions of taking a life are severe, and I don't think anyone disagrees with this. However, I think we are again dealing with a different question. If the moral weight of taking a life prevents you from taking a life, than you remove that option from your decision-making process and the question is unequivically answered, "no, I cannot take a life under any circumstances because I cannot bear the burden of that weight." Choosing not to act on behalf of others because the personal responsibility is too great? This is not the aikido I know. This kind of spirit is perhaps preservative, but not courageous. The aikido spirit I train teaches me to help others, even at personal cost to myself.

Each day, we are challenged to make decisions that result in a moral dilemma. For example, "I've only have two beers with dinner, I am fine to drive." we justify our decision with probability - I won't get pulled over, I won't hit another vehicle, I will see that pedestrian. The perceived probablility of becoming involved in a drinking related incident is low compared to the probability that I will be arrive home safely. So we get into the car and say, "I am fine, I'll be home before you know..." Our moral compass does not prevent us from driving drunk, it just justifies the probablilty that we won't kill someone. It's not that we are morally oppossed to killing, just to the responsibility that comes from comittment.

"What is the probability that I will be involved in a life/death situation? That is a ridiculous scenario that will never happen."

I think our comments speak volumes about who we are. Even if the question is ridiculous.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Jon, good stuff as always!

You bring up some interesting points concerning courage, actions, and moral dilemma.

In some of his interviews the Dali Lama is asked if he considered his actions to not oppose the Chinese were the right ones. He has said, (to over paraphrase) that he might choose to fight them in retrospective, even though he is committed to non-violence as he sees that it might have been a better course of action.

The point is that even though you might consider all life sacred and cannot imagine taking a life or committing to some action that might result in death, I think you have to consider, as you mention Jon, all the issues surrounding it.

I think there is a point in time when it is "just" to do so. I think what is key is that it is done, not out of emotion or anger, but out of compassion for saving life.

Conversely, action might also mean that you give your own life for a greater good.

I like many of the writings concerning bodhisattvas in Buddhist writings, and many of the writings and stories of Saints within the Christian context. They are good compasses to which we can reflect on about who we are as a people and society.

[Hardware]

Kevin, if the LEO / Military folks train for this stuff, then why the PTSD? I mean, if all this training is worth while?

Nice to see some usefull stuff come out of this topic...

Best,
Ron

There are endless reasons how/why people get PTSD.

Someone who was well trained and killed an enemy combatant in a cut-&-dried contact probably has a better chance of not suffering PTSD. However when you factor in things like loosing comrades, seeing intense cruelty and suffering (i.e. virtually all of the peacekeeping missions Canada has been involved with throughout the '90's) the likelihood of getting it increases.

I've alse read studies that explored other factors. One paper compared how during WWII, military units trained together and then went overseas as a unit. During Vietnam, individuals were sent into various units - unit cohesion was poor.

There's also the fact that training someone to deliver deadly force and preparing them mentally so they don't hesitate under stress, doesn't necessarily prepare them for coping with it all afterwards.

[Big Dave]

yes, absolutely.

I think that you have no idea of how you will react in such a situation until you are faced with it. Genuine fear and adrenaline change things.

[SeiserL]

I think that you have no idea of how you will react in such a situation until you are faced with it.
Yep, gotta go along with this one.
We all think we know until we are faced with knowing for sure.
For so many things, there is only one way to find out and I sincerely hope most people never have to.

[Dewey]

http://www.geocities.com/bp_dewey/untitled.bmp
Increase my killing power, ehhhhh?




Seriously, though. As many others have stated, I think it's really a matter of situational ethics. Do I have the technical ability?...questionable at best. That's not what Aikido is about. Do I have the "guts".....yes. I wouldn't hesitate...leaving aside the legal ramifications.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I think everyone probably says the same thing regarding technical ability.

You know I would consider myself fairly "well trained" in technical ability when it comes to "50 ways to kill" having spent the greater majority of my adult life training and employing weapons in various tactical situations.

However, there is always more to learn, always guys that are way much better at it than I. Then there are the situational factors that come into play that will thwart even the best of us!

Again, I think Musashi had it right.

attitude, disposition, and perspective count for alot....what you would call guts.

[Cypher]

If it was a matter of life or death in the instance that i was being attacked or an innocent, Absolutely

Tony Strickland

[darin]

A 32 year old Japanese student was murdered (stabbed in the throat), for no reason, last night at Perth Bus Station by a 22 year old psycho with a knife. I just found out this evening that the victim was someone I met a few times at a friend's house some years ago. My condolences to his family, colleagues and friends.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/local/wa/

[Dan O'Day]

A couple years ago my best buddy - we've been friends for forty years - killed a guy who broke into his home. The deceased broke in by throwing a rock through a window and then crawling through the glass encrusted broken frame and into the house. The attacker then picked up a fireplace poker and threw it at my friend's fleeing infant children and their mother.

The attacker then picked up another fireplace implement and started going after my friend who had the time and presence of mind to grab a large kitchen knife off the kitchen counter rack.

Long story short...my friend, who has no aikido training but has had some exposure to other martial arts over the years, fended off some blows with the fireplace tool and then got in close and stabbed his attacker in the chest.

The knife broke against the breastbone and the attacker who, yes, was very high on drugs, advanced again. This time my friend once again got in close and slit the attackers throat. The attacker fell to the floor bleeding out quickly and dying moments later.

I think the basic thread question doesn't really make sense. If someone is trying to kill you I think most folks would, in their attempts to survive, do whatever they could to survive.

Maybe that would be to run like hell, maybe it would be to counter the attacker's advances with whatever techniques one knew or could muster up, maybe call the police and then climb up on a roof, whatever...

If one was trained in aikido and was forced to defend oneself I am absolutely sure that some, if not all of their responses to the attack would be aikido based if only because it would be second - or rather first! - nature to do so.

The other side of the coin is I am a true believer that all methods of spiritual advancement, whether they be of a physical variety like aikido or yoga or a tai chi are equal in what they create to non-physical spiritual endeavors.

That being a dynamic field of well...I don't know what to call it, how to term it though I've seen it in action. It's kind of like the person is invisible but they're not. It's just an "energy"...an energy which does not accept, or rather disallows aberrant behavior from interacting with it.

It nips it in the bud, maybe never even allowing it to germinate in the first place.

Anyway...to me, that is the promise of aikido and all the other countless methods of training/practice humans have come up with over the years to become closer to the mystery.

The promise. To create a world where all human beings are one family, yes indeed but additionaly that all human beings know they are one family.

[BK Barker]

Yep, gotta go along with this one.
We all think we know until we are faced with knowing for sure.
For so many things, there is only one way to find out and I sincerely hope most people never have to.

Lynn I do agree with you and Mr. Peling!!!

I have read a lot of the replies here and have seen some very thoughtful and incitefull comments but in my experience being a us military veteran as well as a fire fighter and well... a good ole' boy nobody really knows how they will react in any given situation without actually having been in that situation. Everyone can say what they want and I hope that most will know themselve's well enough to make an educated statement about what they would do. As far as using Aikido or another martial art to kill someone.... if I happen to react properly and those techniques are the one's I was able to utilize then so be it but I do remember that (I believe) Lynn made a comment about knowing faster/easier ways of doing it which I do as well but... I hope that nobody including myself ever has to be put in the spot of taking someone's life as there are a lot of things that go along with it besides the obvious problems no matter if it was justified or not!

[dps]

I believe that anyone is capable of doing anything at anytime. It is a matter of self control that a person has that prevents them or allows them to act. Fortunately most people have that control most of the time. That is why awareness of your surroundings in everything you do is so important, to catch the times when someone loses control, and when to exercise yours.

David

[Guilty Spark]

T If someone was attempting to kill you with an edged weapon would you defend yourself using lethal force if your life depended on it.

Yes without a doubt.

Here is a link to a recent issue in Alberta regarding your OP.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2008/01/07/4756214-sun.html

Police are looking at charging a home owner who in the process of defending himself against two scumbags breaking into his house (while at home with his wife) killed one of the criminals and stabbed the other 12 times.

....... But the self-defence umbrella only covers incapacitating an attacker, not continuing to harm them once they no longer pose a threat.

The problem, said Kanwar, is that using "reasonable force" to fight back is measured differently in each case, meaning there are no black and white boundaries for self-defence -- and reactions in some cases could result in second-degree murder or manslaughter charges.

Defining boundaries may not help because human nature doesn't always allow for rational thinking in the heat of the moment, said Kanwar.

"When you are afraid for your life, you don't think about what is reasonable, you don't even know what you're doing."

[Mato-san]

yes... Aikido or no Aikido.... eye for an eye... if the attack and intent were strong the response also would be strong.

[Mato-san]

I respect Steven segal and his Aikido... some will slander him but his waza is superb.... wrong thread but I want to make the statement

[GLWeeks]

yes... Aikido or no Aikido.... eye for an eye... if the attack and intent were strong the response also would be strong.

Bas Rutten says "Two eyes for an eye."... I can dig it! :D