YouTube: Aikido in a real street fight.

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[salim]

Very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXNmgUz9RU&feature=related

[Kevin Leavitt]

Nah, that is not aikido, that is straight up BJJ.

[Kevin Leavitt]

here is a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEuH_zk9k9o

[Kevin Leavitt]

Or...it could be judo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgjfBnTMn1c

[Kevin Leavitt]

Sorry, realized I might be coming across as a smart ass. Didn't really mean it that way. Point is, which I know Salim understands is that there are lots of examples to turn to to find application. All are good examples that can be found in waza.

[salim]

Sorry, realized I might be coming across as a smart ass. Didn't really mean it that way. Point is, which I know Salim understands is that there are lots of examples to turn to to find application. All are good examples that can be found in waza.

Nah, I value your opinion. I'm not sensitive like some. I take it as a joke and like a little humor sometimes. You're probably right, it's Judo.

[salim]

Unfortunately some Aikidoka have become too sensitive and not accept some level of constructive criticism. It's good to hear your thoughts.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Yea it was a little bit of a joke. But, I think it is not so important what it is vice recognizing that the waza can be applicable and there are some universal principles, basic movements in all waza.

the difference, (and the importance), is the timing (as we are discussing on the other thread).

I think what is most important is looking at how the officer sets it up. the ma ai, body language, position of both, and then the decisive, explosive, deliberate manner in which he decides to enter and take balance and control.

the Ma'ai is what is most important and what happens. Timing. it is almost everything! A llittle O soto gari also, but timing.

[Guilty Spark]

What people need to do is *NOT* take the title of youtube videos as fact and pass it along as such.

[sorokod]

Hello Salim


Very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXNm...eature=related


The policeman closes the maai, creates an opening which the civilian does not take and then rushes the civilian. At no point the civilian is a threat, hands in pockets, not entering when the chance comes up, he is completely passive.

As things are in the video (and without a wider context), the use of force of this magnitude is completely misplaced.

[Enrique Antonio Reyes]

I'm not sure... it looks more like he struck the guy (and followed through) with a palm strike to the throat. Not so Aiki to me (but hey I'm not really an Aikido master or something)

One-Aiki,

Iking

[mathewjgano]

Hello Salim

The policeman closes the maai, creates an opening which the civilian does not take and then rushes the civilian. At no point the civilian is a threat, hands in pockets, not entering when the chance comes up, he is completely passive.

As things are in the video (and without a wider context), the use of force of this magnitude is completely misplaced.

I was curious about the context as well. It's a great shomen ate, but the other guy doesn't exactly seem to offer anything in the way of an attack. I guess you could call that a good use of maintaining the initiative?

[Guilty Spark]

As things are in the video (and without a wider context), the use of force of this magnitude is completely misplaced.

I agree 100%.
Wider context is needed. You tube videos can easly be edited WRT timelines, when they start and stop, to create a biased opinion.

A 13 second video of a cop striking a man who has his hands in his pockets could very well be from a 2 minute and 13 second video of said man pulling a knife on a police officer and stabbing them thrn running away, hiding trying to blend into a crowd then when found has his hands back in his pockets saying "hey man I don't wanna fight".

He could have a pistol behind his back in a waist band or had previously been extremely violent.

[Nick P.]

I saw a lunge and a strike to the throat; maybe if the civilian were coming at the gentleman in the yellow shirt (I find it difficult to use the title "officer" in this context) I would accept the argument it was an atemi. The civilian was standing still, with hands in pockets; if there was suspicion of a weapon on his person or he was suspected of an earlier attack, weapons drawn might have been the wiser choice for the responding units (but I am no armchair tactical officer!).

Agreed, though, context is everything when watching a video.

[ChristianBoddum]

I think I have seen this video before, with sound and longer.
What you see here is what happens after the policeman have given
orders for the person to comply, and after last warning he takes charge and gets in control.

[Aikibu]

Another example of If you look hard enough You can find Aikido in everything. LOL ;)

William Hazen

[Michael Hackett]

This is a very short clip from a longer segment of the TV show "Cops" filmed in Las Vegas. The suspect was drunk and non-compliant with several warnings to remove his hands from his pockets. As I recall, he had just been involved in another fracus.

[sorokod]

More context: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TXXzvpnkvm0

[Nick P.]

Thanks David.

I have often wondered how much having a TV show camera rolling prompts instances of "Kodak Courage" (the concept that you do things you wouldnt otherwise do if there were no camera) on that show, and this case in particular; unedited footage, 3rd warning within 15 seconds equals take down, and see the yellow shirts' body language at 0:41? See his legs? Body language to me, combined with his statement while climbing out of the cruiser ("...looks a little amped up...") doesn't help convince of anything other than looking for a reason to nail someone.

I wouldnt be surprised that the yellow shirt was the one who uttered the word that got bleeped. Disapointed, but in this context, not surprised.

Cops have dangerous jobs, no doubt about it. This looked a little premeditated, to me.

[Michael Hackett]

Nick,

You may have a good point about "Kodak Courage". We've certainly seen something similar in televised court cases. You would think that we would be on our best behavior when being filmed....

[mathewjgano]

Thanks David.

I have often wondered how much having a TV show camera rolling prompts instances of "Kodak Courage" (the concept that you do things you wouldnt otherwise do if there were no camera) on that show, and this case in particular; unedited footage, 3rd warning within 15 seconds equals take down, and see the yellow shirts' body language at 0:41? See his legs? Body language to me, combined with his statement while climbing out of the cruiser ("...looks a little amped up...") doesn't help convince of anything other than looking for a reason to nail someone.

I wouldnt be surprised that the yellow shirt was the one who uttered the word that got bleeped. Disapointed, but in this context, not surprised.

Cops have dangerous jobs, no doubt about it. This looked a little premeditated, to me.

I think the bleep was the civilian, but that video didn't make me feel better about the cop. I thought the civilian looked a little tightly wound, but I didn't see cause for the take-down. I'm not familiar with the law very well though and I'm betting a lawyer would have picked up on this video by now if the cop exceded his authority.
Still, great shomen ate! Looked almost like Shodokan kata to me.

[sorokod]

I'm not familiar with the law very well though and I'm betting a lawyer would have picked up on this video by now if the cop exceded his authority.
Still, great shomen ate! Looked almost like Shodokan kata to me

I suppose that every community decides for itself the amount of violence it's law-keepers are allowed to employ. I have the good fortune of not living in that one.

As to the technique, it is applied to unresisting and unskilled person, so yeah it works, so what? Imagine this was a dojo and you are witnessing a yudansha smashing a first time student into the mat.

[Michael Hackett]

If all you see is the YouTube clip, then you can come to the conclusion that the force was excessive. If you see the longer version, you opinion might change. Then again it may not. There was more to this event than shown on YouTube.

[gdandscompserv]

I suppose that every community decides for itself the amount of violence it's law-keepers are allowed to employ. I have the good fortune of not living in that one.

As to the technique, it is applied to unresisting and unskilled person, so yeah it works, so what? Imagine this was a dojo and you are witnessing a yudansha smashing a first time student into the mat.
Aikido's not martial enough!;)

[sorokod]

There was more to this event than shown on YouTube.
If you have more details please share them.

[Michael Hackett]

As I mentioned previously, this was only part of a segment from "Cops". The full segment showed him involved in a scuffle just immediately before the sergeant arrived although I don't remember the details too well. The suspect was drunk and refused to take his hands from his pockets. I thought at the time the force used was legal and justified by California standards. I can't speak to Nevada standards, but the force used was consistent with established federal case law standards in my opinion. I base my opinion on over thirty years of law enforcement experience and several events where I disciplined officers for excessive force. With only the short clip to rely on, I can certainly see why a viewer would be concerned. YMMV.

[mathewjgano]

As to the technique, it is applied to unresisting and unskilled person, so yeah it works, so what? Imagine this was a dojo and you are witnessing a yudansha smashing a first time student into the mat.
I wouldn't assume the guy was unskilled, but I agree the use of force seemed excessive. I wasn't commenting on whether or not it worked. I just thought it looked like kata, partly because "uke" didn't really seem to be offering much of an attack.
I think it's a good point that we don't have the fullest context, though. We don't know much about the earlier behavior of the guy, toxicology reports, etc. I believe jobs of power such as the police should be held to almost ridiculously high standards, but without knowing more, I just have a hard time condemning this officer. I think the 2 videos I've seen beg the question of proper conduct though, and I'm curious if any reports were filed.

[salim]

In the clip below, sensei Takeno Takafumi applies a similar technique at about 0:52 of the video. If you pause the video, you can see how he lunges into the attacker, leaning forward to insure he goes down. Almost looks like atemi applied also. Check it out.

http://www.duman6.gen.tr/izle.php?video=l6Y3WZuUtVo

[sorokod]

As I mentioned previously, this was only part of a segment from "Cops". The full segment showed him involved in a scuffle just immediately before the sergeant arrived although I don't remember the details too well. The suspect was drunk and refused to take his hands from his pockets. I thought at the time the force used was legal and justified by California standards. I can't speak to Nevada standards, but the force used was consistent with established federal case law standards in my opinion. I base my opinion on over thirty years of law enforcement experience and several events where I disciplined officers for excessive force. With only the short clip to rely on, I can certainly see why a viewer would be concerned. YMMV.

I have no skills to asses the legality of the cop's actions, and they may very well have been legal. On the other hand, I am glad not to be a member of a community that legalizes this magnitude of violence against suspects.

[Anjisan]

To me I see Irimi but no Aiki, no blending at all. The opportunity to use Aikido was when he was standing there with an opportunity to speak with the guy (or to blend with an attack if there was one or an "imminent" one). From that point forward it is the officer just being unprofessional and excessive. If the subject cracked his head or received a concussion--oh yea, the lawyers are going after the deep pockets of LVPD and he is the means to get at them. I am in law enforcement and that would not fly in my agency.

[Niccolo Gallio]

Well, in my humble opinion we should not speak of Aikido watching the original (i.e. posted in the first post of this thread) video, as the only thing that - very remotely - resembles aikido to me is the second scene where an elder man dressed in hakama pants repeatedly slams his ukemi on the mat.
It may not reflect your views but where I train we pose great consideration of the health of ukemi and we avoid atemi here possible because we feel we must always strive to achieve the desired result in the least violent way possible.
I can understand that the person in yellow shirt may have all the reasons to attack (yes I think he is attacking) the other guy, but I would not call it Aikido, really.

sincerely

niccolo'

[Kevin Leavitt]

I don't call it anything other than what you see in the video. It is what it is, a guy in a yellow shirt taking down another guy.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Well, at least the guy wasn't taken down Texas style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhGmulRWGP4).

The technique performed by LVPD officer has more "aikido" in it than the one used by the texan officer, imho of course.

[Michael Douglas]

Very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXNmgUz9RU&feature=related

Ain't no streetfight, someone's been reading a stupid scrolling title I guess ...
I haven't read the thread YET, I'd like to comment without reference to other posts because the BASTARD in the yellow shirt should be locked up for unprovoked assault with intent. Lucky the victim didn't smash his head open on the tarmac after being throat-struck and thrown down.
Shame there weren't any real cops around to shoot the guy in yellow. ( I said real )

Now I'll go read what others have posted and find some idiots who might be justifying that attack. :eek:

[Nick P.]

Ain't no streetfight, someone's been reading a stupid scrolling title I guess ...
I haven't read the thread YET, I'd like to comment without reference to other posts because the BASTARD in the yellow shirt should be locked up for unprovoked assault with intent. Lucky the victim didn't smash his head open on the tarmac after being throat-struck and thrown down.
Shame there weren't any real cops around to shoot the guy in yellow. ( I said real )

Now I'll go read what others have posted and find some idiots who might be justifying that attack. :eek:

Michael,

What are you trying to say? Don't hold back now, tell us what you really think.... ;)

PS - I agree.

[mickeygelum]

SWEET !

This is a classic...I was wondering when someone would put it here.

Sucks to be a drunk claiming you have a gun. Too bad the whole incident was not posted, there is quite a bit missing.

....the BASTARD in the yellow shirt should be locked up for unprovoked assault with intent...Huh?


Mickey

[gdandscompserv]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXXzvpnkvm0

[gdandscompserv]

Ain't no streetfight, someone's been reading a stupid scrolling title I guess ...
I haven't read the thread YET, I'd like to comment without reference to other posts because the BASTARD in the yellow shirt should be locked up for unprovoked assault with intent. Lucky the victim didn't smash his head open on the tarmac after being throat-struck and thrown down.
Shame there weren't any real cops around to shoot the guy in yellow. ( I said real )

Now I'll go read what others have posted and find some idiots who might be justifying that attack. :eek:
Would you have preferred this outcome?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX1TC9M05qQ&feature=related

[Kevin Leavitt]

Amazing the perspective a little more information provides.

[salim]

Ain't no streetfight, someone's been reading a stupid scrolling title I guess ...
I haven't read the thread YET, I'd like to comment without reference to other posts because the BASTARD in the yellow shirt should be locked up for unprovoked assault with intent. Lucky the victim didn't smash his head open on the tarmac after being throat-struck and thrown down.
Shame there weren't any real cops around to shoot the guy in yellow. ( I said real )

Now I'll go read what others have posted and find some idiots who might be justifying that attack. :eek:

We need to keep our streets safe from thugs and murders. That was not a nice guy who was not cooperating with the law. You have to see the entire video before you speak.

[sorokod]

We need to keep our streets safe from thugs and murders. That was not a nice guy who was not cooperating with the law. You have to see the entire video before you speak.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/296144/cops_las_vegas_heat/

I think that this is the entire video. There is no more. No guns. No trying to hide in the crowd. Just a guy that has been pointed out by another guy.

[Nick P.]

We need to keep our streets safe from thugs and murders. That was not a nice guy who was not cooperating with the law. You have to see the entire video before you speak.

Salim,
Was that the point you were trying to make when you posted originally?

If so....

"Hi everyone,

I've been noticing an increase in the number of posts consisting basically of links to videos (eg to YouTube). Although I can certainly understand the use of videos as a discussion point, I find videos in and of themselves more a supplement for discussions.

Therefore, I would like to ask of all of you: Rather than just posting links, please add your thoughts to the videos. For example, your thoughts could answer questions such as:
What is your interpretation of the videos?
Why are these videos important to you in the thread?
How do these videos contribute to the discussion at hand?
How do these videos reflect your own thoughts in the thread?
Please let's try to use links to videos to further discussion by using them as supplementary points to discussion rather than replacing discussion itself.

Thanks,

-- Jun"
from http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/
showthread.php?t=15008&goto=newpost

[mathewjgano]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/296144/cops_las_vegas_heat/

I think that this is the entire video. There is no more. No guns. No trying to hide in the crowd. Just a guy that has been pointed out by another guy.

Maybe it's a foolish hope or a firm idealism of "innocent until proven guilty," but I think it's important to remember the video is still not the complete picture. I'm not making excuses for the officer. "Innocent until proven guilty" should apply more to civilians than the powers that be, in my opinion, and other than the fact that the kid put his right hand back into his pocket (or so it appeared to me on the video), I don't see much of an aggressive posture coming from the suspect (a bit defiant probably). Also, at the end of the clip when the officer tells the guy to put his arms behind his back he's oblivious of the fact that he's already pinning them...he's still extending the arm over the suspects head in fact. I thought the suspect remained surprisingly calm when he replied, "I'm trying." I would have been a little angry. Then again, I would have also complied with the initial request.
Maybe our law enforcement friends can tell us how the oversight works in another thread. I'm sure it's been covered to some extent, but I know I'd appreciate learning about how it works in the different states. If indeed the facts of this issue are that the officer overstepped his boundaries, I'd be surprised if my highly litigious society didn't pounce on video footage of it. Then again, I was surprised the officers who beat Rodney King didn't get in more trouble.
Trying to tie this back into Aikido:
Technically speaking, the officer's shomen ate (it looks almost exactly like I practiced it in Shodokan) covers a lot of ground quickly and lifts the other person upward and back. He does a good job, I thought, of maintaining contact through the descent to the ground. While technically, i would call this an Aikido technique, I would also say it's not in keeping with the Ai of love O Sensei seemed to feel ought imbue Aikido, thus in that sense, it's also not an Aikido technique. I suppose it depends upon which Aikido one is talking about.

[salim]

Salim,
Was that the point you were trying to make when you posted originally?

If so....

"Hi everyone,

I've been noticing an increase in the number of posts consisting basically of links to videos (eg to YouTube). Although I can certainly understand the use of videos as a discussion point, I find videos in and of themselves more a supplement for discussions.

Therefore, I would like to ask of all of you: Rather than just posting links, please add your thoughts to the videos. For example, your thoughts could answer questions such as:
What is your interpretation of the videos?
Why are these videos important to you in the thread?
How do these videos contribute to the discussion at hand?
How do these videos reflect your own thoughts in the thread?
Please let's try to use links to videos to further discussion by using them as supplementary points to discussion rather than replacing discussion itself.

Thanks,

-- Jun"
from http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/
showthread.php?t=15008&goto=newpost

My intention was of two parts. First, maybe there is some Aiki in the video, although highly questionable. It really depends on your methodology of Aikido. But more importantly, keeping our streets safe from danger without causing too much harm. Really the officer could have caused a lot more harm, maybe even killed him. Officers have the power and the right to kill, if they feel there is immediate, deadly danger. Almost all cases in court, when officers kill are ruled justifiable. When an officer ask you to do something, no matter how stupid it may be, it's better to obey as much as possible their orders.

I agree, excessive force is not what the police force should demonstrate, but we have to acknowledge that there are a lot of bad guys roaming the streets. Officers have to deal with them. I'm glad it's not my job and I hope they can catch them before they cause harm.

[Michael Hackett]

Matthew,

Here is a general overview of use of force or misconduct oversight. While each state and agency is a little different, most are quite similar. The agency will have a use of force policy which details when force can be used and the level of force acceptable. You will often hear of the "use of force continuum" which is a graphic tool to explain the policy to officers. The UOF policies must comply with state law and federal law, but they must be more restrictive if they do differ. For example the laws authorize the use of firearms and the agency can choose to prohibit firearms. An extreme example, but it explains the concept.

Any individual may complain that an officer went too far; the "victim", witnesses, or other officers. The agency is obligated to investigate the event in two different ways. One path is a criminal investigation which could result in the officer being prosecuted criminally. The other is administrative and can result in the officer being disciplined or terminated. The two different types of investigation cannot be combined and must be separate although the administrative investigation can rely on evidence found in the criminal investigation but not the reverse. There are lots of legal reasons why that is the case and too complex to go into here.

It is common that officers are disciplined as a result of an administrative investigation and cleared in a criminal investigation. That is usually because the officer violated department policies but did not break the law.

Additionally the Civil Rights Division of the FBI investigates these kinds of events frequently. They don't need to receive a formal complaint, but can and will open an investigation from media accounts or media such as YouTube. They look at the events from the perspective of federal Civil Rights legislation and prosecute in federal criminal court.

On the civil side of the equation, officers, their department and leadership get sued by those who feel they have been the victim of excessive force fairly often and those cases are usually filed in federal court. Federal court is usually chosen because the attorney fees and costs are paid by the defendants if the plaintiff prevails in any manner. If punitive damages are awarded, the individual officer has to pay them personally as punitive damages are awarded to punish the offender. General damages are usually paid by the employing agency.

Generally all of these actions address a few issues. Was the action complained of within policy? Was it in compliance with the existing law? Those two issues alone will generally determine whether the officer will be punished by his agency or prosecuted criminally. Both of those questions can be answered in the officer's favor and a judgement in civil court can still go against him if the jury feels that the conduct was excessive.

This is actually a very brief overview of the process and I hope it helps. There are weighty textbooks on the subject and I just wanted to give you a basic understanding.

[sorokod]

Michael, thank you for the very informative post. Can you say something about how is a "use of force policy" is formulated?

[Michael Hackett]

David,

Interesting question. There are model policies available through professional organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and some agencies will adopt those with local tweaks. They can gather sample policies from areas in the same region or hire someone like me to write the policy for them. Often the policy in draft form is reviewed by legal departments and even the governing body before adoption.

I think the real question you pose is how are policies amended? Once the initial policy has been adopted, new tools are invented and new events shape the evolving policy. Let's talk about events for a moment. Perhaps the existing policy of an agency has proven just fine and adequate. Across the country a news account is published where some officer has used a tool or technique that resulted in needless suffering or tragedy. Once the Chief Executive learns the details of that event (s) he might change his local policy to prevent an occurance in his own agency. A case in point is the use of the "bar-arm choke". Years ago most agencies allowed both the bar-arm and carotid choke. Some suspects were severely injured or died as a result of the bar-arm choke and I don't personally know of any agency that currently allows it today. In order to keep abreast of these kinds of issues, police leaders follow reports in legal journals, read professional journals, and attend professional conferences.

On the other hand, new tools are developed and officers urge their adoption. In my early years MACE was the hot ticket item. Now we have OC (pepper spray) and the TASER device. The agency will research the item pretty thoroughly and then decide whether it should be included in the UOF policy and where it should fit on the UOF continuum. The host of items is endless and some are rejected, some are approved for general use and some are adopted for special uses. An example would be that LAPD did not have rifles in patrol cars until after the North Hollywood bank robbery and now most agencies have armed their patrol cars with rifles in addition to the shotgun.

There is a constant quest to find non-lethal or low-lethal weapons for police purposes and a lot of research is going on today. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department has an R&D unit attached to their Special Enforcement Bureau to do just that and they are constantly testing new products as they are developed. Regardless of whether the force used is by empty hand techniques or by a specific weapon, the issue remains proper use in terms of time, place, context, and event. That goes back to my other lengthy response about oversight.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but this stuff is just like Aikido - it's simple, but it ain't easy.

[hapkidoike]

. . . Officers have the power and the right to kill, if they feel there is immediate, deadly danger. . .

Salim, I take issue with your use of the word 'right' here. Cops have a job, with a job comes resposibilites. Sometimes the police have a responsibility to use deadly force, but they don't have a right to it. They get paid to "serve & protect" the citizenry (I put that in quotes because I rarely see the police serving or protecting anybody, although it does happen). It is an important distinction. If one has a right it is a moral entitlement (right to life, right to libery, etc.). A cop does not have a moral entitlement to 'kill people', although he does have a right to defend himself which may envolve killing folks, and a responsibility to the state (or whatever jurisdiction he works for) to protect the citizenry.

speaking of cop videos I always thought this was a good example of one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4z5Gs6bPk). Nobody gets hurt and the 'anarchist' achives his goal. I have heard reports that it was staged by the police to give justification for what they ended up doing at the RNC. The police have done that before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow), at least in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html).

Later,
Bettis

[salim]

Salim, I take issue with your use of the word 'right' here. Cops have a job, with a job comes resposibilites. Sometimes the police have a responsibility to use deadly force, but they don't have a right to it. They get paid to "serve & protect" the citizenry (I put that in quotes because I rarely see the police serving or protecting anybody, although it does happen). It is an important distinction. If one has a right it is a moral entitlement (right to life, right to libery, etc.). A cop does not have a moral entitlement to 'kill people', although he does have a right to defend himself which may envolve killing folks, and a responsibility to the state (or whatever jurisdiction he works for) to protect the citizenry.

speaking of cop videos I always thought this was a good example of one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn4z5Gs6bPk). Nobody gets hurt and the 'anarchist' achives his goal. I have heard reports that it was staged by the police to give justification for what they ended up doing at the RNC. The police have done that before (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow), at least in Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/08/23/police-montebello.html).

Later,
Bettis
I agree with you in theory. But the reality is judges and courts protect the irresponsible killings from police. That's why I said, they have the right. The legal system is setup to allow them to kill you when they fill they should. Sure some are found guilty and are charged. But the overwhelming majority go unpunished.

Until the local governments take away the power of the police enforcement agencies in America (meaning severe control of the use of deadly force), we will continue to see killings from police that are unjustifiable.

Take heed and obey the orders that the police give you. Otherwise suffer the consequences. That's what happen to the guy in the video (he was asked three times to remove his hand from his pocket), he failed to obey orders. He could have been killed. Don't play stupid or a badass with the police, they can kill you.

[sorokod]

Salim

You are describing an adversarial system gone mad with police on one hand and civilians on the other trying to get away with as much as possible, constrained only by the courts.

I would not wish on anyone to live in such a society.

[salim]

Salim

You are describing an adversarial system gone mad with police on one hand and civilians on the other trying to get away with as much as possible, constrained only by the courts.

I would not wish on anyone to live in such a society.

I'm not an expert, just a layman observing. Michael Hackett seems to have more indepth knowledge on the matter. I guess the final analysis maybe summed up, obey orders and perhaps you want be hurt by the police. We will always see injustices committed by both civilians and police. Chris Rock gave a funny, but often very true, simple steps to avoid being hurt by the police.

See the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

[gdandscompserv]

Salim

You are describing an adversarial system gone mad with police on one hand and civilians on the other trying to get away with as much as possible, constrained only by the courts.

I would not wish on anyone to live in such a society.
It's the wild, wild, west baby!:D

[Nick P.]

I'm not an expert, just a layman observing. Michael Hackett seems to have more indepth knowledge on the matter. I guess the final analysis maybe summed up, obey orders and perhaps you want be hurt by the police. We will always see injustices committed by both civilians and police. Chris Rock gave a funny, but often very true, simple steps to avoid being hurt by the police.

See the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

HAH! Man, I laughed!!!!

[senshincenter]

Some things I thought about when reading the thread...

“Is it Aikido?”

- Yes, for me it is. It is Aikido technically, tactically, and strategically.

Someone wrote: “At no point the civilian is a threat, hands in pockets, not entering when the chance comes up, he is completely passive.”

- When you are an EMT, every patient has a communicative disease, until demonstrated otherwise. When you are wearing a badge and a firearm, every civilian is a threat, until proven otherwise.
- Last year, according to the FBI 2007 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted: 57 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty, and 59,201 suffered assaults while on duty. Of the 57 killed, 21 were killed under the circumstances viewed in the video. Of the officers assaulted, 31% occurred under circumstances viewed in the video. 80.2% of the time, the suspects used personal weapons (hands, fists, feet), to assault the officer.
- One of the most dangerous things when facing a suspect is being unable to see his/her hands (keeping them behind one’s back, in one’s pockets, etc.) This is because the existence of a weapon remains unknown, and that “unknowing” forces the officer into a reactionary state, forcing the officer to be behind in the OODA cycle – which increases the suspect’s likelihood of being successful in his/her assault attempts.
- Weapons, from knives to handguns, etc., are very often kept in folks’ pockets.
- The suspect would not show the officer his hands, would not comply with verbal directions, and would continually re-place his hands in his pockets. In some areas, at some moments, such behavior is not only enough for a suspect to utilize in the slaying of an officer, but it enough for an officer to raise matters near to the level of lethal force. For example, in some places, at some times, it would not have been out of the ordinary for an officer to draw is firearm and point it at the suspect for such behavior.
- The suspect already physically demonstrated aggressive/non-compliant behavior even before the officer approached him – as we can see in the officer’s comment when he first views the guy. Additionally, he is a person suspected of committing battery upon another.
- In short, this is not a normal situation, the suspect is not a normal person, and the officer would have been a fool to act (further down on a use of force spectrum) otherwise. * To tip my hand: At minimum, that would have been a Taser out call for me. Instructions would have been given for him to sit on the ground (legs out, ankles crossed, hand visible on his lap), not walk passed me to my car. Non-compliance for that amount of time, with that number or verbal repetitions, ZAP!

Someone wrote: “I'm not sure... it looks more like he struck the guy (and followed through) with a palm strike to the throat. Not so Aiki to me (but hey I'm not really an Aikido master or something)”

- If Aiki is a way of harmonizing with universal principles, if it is a way of universal reconciliation, both martial and spiritual, both personal and global, both internally and externally, etc., then it must include all aspects of existence. It cannot by default be synonymous with softness, indirectness, gentleness, etc., and with a rejection of those aspects that are opposite to things. Such a standpoint is not a reconciliation but rather a mere exclusion and then by default non-Aiki. I am reminded here of a radio interview Osensei did, one where the interviewer asks Osensei something like, “Is it true there are not strikes in Aikido, no offense?” Osensei laughs, laughing at the absurdity of the questions, and states that for Aikido to truly be universal it must include offense as much as defense, etc. Others with better memory than mine can chime in and make this point better – please.

Was the suspect unskilled?

- Forgetting for the time being that even unskilled/untrained suspects injure and/or kill officers, I believe the suspect was more likely trained than not trained. Cues for this are that the suspect took several steps into the back-fall and tucked his chin, keeping his head off of the ground. These are not intuitive behaviors. Look to your beginners in your dojo and see how many right off the bat leave the feet in place and fail to tuck their chin. Additionally, but definitely less trustworthy, his style of dress and grooming smells of MMA sub-culture, as does his reported fighting.

Someone wrote: “I wouldn't assume the guy was unskilled, but I agree the use of force seemed excessive. I wasn't commenting on whether or not it worked. I just thought it looked like kata, partly because "uke" didn't really seem to be offering much of an attack.”

- A thing this touches on for me is that this is not sport or dojo culture we are dealing with here. What often goes totally without saying, as far as what a luxury it is, is that sport and dojo culture have established start and stop times. Violence outside of these controlled environments, because start and stop points are never established in the streets, can only erupt into our plain of existence. This is the main reason why law enforcement and military personal have constant debates over vigilance and what it means to maintain it. Such energy is a testament that one does not know, cannot know, when or how violence is going to rear its head; that violence is, for the most part, completely unexpected. As a result, waiting for fully developed attacks to establish themselves, as is most often done in Kihon Waza training, in non-controlled environments, not only means you are way late, but that you were ignorant of a whole lot of cues you should have picked up on but didn’t. From this point of view, while his resistance seemed “passive” it contained within it a lot of aggressive behavior. This is most often noticeable from the opposite perspective. Imagine it is you, and you were NOT fighting in the street, and an officer comes up to you because he/she thinks you match the description of the suspect… He says, “Can I talk to you?” You say, “Yeah sure officer.” He says, “Can you do me a favor and take your hands out of your pocket?” You say, “Yeah sure officer.” You see where this is going? You wouldn’t act like this person at all, as “normal/innocent” citizen would.

Someone wrote: “From that point forward it is the officer just being unprofessional and excessive. If the subject cracked his head or received a concussion--oh yea, the lawyers are going after the deep pockets of LVPD and he is the means to get at them.”

- Check out this Taser shot and watch what happens to the back of her head – in a not altogether different situation. While I stated I would have gone with a Taser shot, I can easily conceded that lost of control the suspect will most likely have over absorbing the back fall (steps to the rear, tucked chin, etc.):

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXoczxzwYk

[Kevin Leavitt]

Good post David.

Another perspective to look at that comes to my mind is this.

What if the officer had chosen a less decisive method to close with and apprehend the suspect?

What if the guy pulled a knife?

What if it then became a weapons retention issue for the officer?

What if this guy was a proficient groundfighter?

Was it better to be decisive and act in a rapid and violent manner that resulted in suprise and quick resolution?

or would it have been better to allow for all those other factors to become variables and result in a larger escalation of force with baton, spray, tasers, or even sidearm?

What is the margin of error when making a decisive and quick action to gain control (OODA)? How much time do you have?

From the video you see that the suspect was taken down and cuffed with very little actual injury compared to what might have happened.

That much we know! We can see it.

Lots of unknowns though and I have an imagination that tells me that it could have gone many ways alot worse for all involved.

Maybe the Cop DID constrain his action. Maybe he was a judoka and he let his right leg slide by instead of using a full reap and sweep that would have resulted in the suspect going full on his head instead of falling the way he did!

don't know.

Again, we can see how it ended in the video, and everyone lived another day with no real injury!

Decisive and violence of action....YES.

Outcome, we see it on the tape.

What MIGHT have happened and a kinder and gentler approach have been chosen. We don't know do we?

We need to focus on the results of the action, I think, not the emotional aspects of them.

It appeared that the Cop applied Escalation of Force criteria as well. that does not require you to have Tea and Biscuits and get to know each other very well in seiza!

[salim]

David Valadez,

Excellent post. I agree completely. For me the video is Aiki also. Police orders have to be obeyed. Thanks for articulating so wonderfully.

[sorokod]

When you are an EMT, every patient has a communicative disease, until demonstrated otherwise. When you are wearing a badge and a firearm, every civilian is a threat, until proven otherwise.

Don't know about EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) As to "badge and firearm" this is just not so. In environment where "every civilian is a threat", things look completely different, check out video reports from Baghdad or the West Bank.

Last year, according to the FBI 2007 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted: 57 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty,

According to this http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000006/d000006.html over 17000 died in USA in 1999 as a result of "Slips, Trips and Falls" accidents, that's more then 45 per day. I do not wish to trivialize any ones death but lets keep things in proportion.

By the way http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm is a very interesting resource, thanks for pointing it out.

One of the most dangerous things when facing a suspect is being unable to see ...

This is highly technical. I guess various agencies have this analysed and internalised to the required level. Posters in this thread with law enforcement experience, commented that within the context presented in the videos, the force seems to be excessive.

The suspect would not show the officer his hands, would not comply with verbal directions, and would continually re-place his hands in his pockets.

A suspect, not the suspect (there are two of them), keeps his thumbs (not hands) continuously in his pockets. There is no need to add things that are not there.

In some areas, at some moments, such behavior is not only enough for a suspect to utilize in the slaying of an officer, but it enough for an officer to raise matters near to the level of lethal force.

Are you are saying that the cop is not using enough force? In that case should he not as aggressive towards the other suspect that approaches his car to "give directions". Isn't the cop in peril at that point? After all other suspect's hands are not constantly visible.

The suspect already physically demonstrated aggressive/non-compliant behavior even before the officer approached him -- as we can see in the officer's comment when he first views the guy.

Non compliant yes, aggressive no. I did not really understood the cop's comment, what does it mean?

Additionally, he is a person suspected of committing battery upon another.

In the video this is described in the bland official language as "two males fighting". There is no need to add color.

...states that for Aikido to truly be universal it must include offense as much as defense

No argument here, except that in this case there was very little to be offensive/defensive about.

I believe the suspect was more likely trained than not trained.

I originally suggested that he was unskilled, but off course there is no way for me to know. What he is not is "on", so the skills he may or may not posses are irrelevant, in the same way a powerfull computer is irrelevant if it is not on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQXoczxzwYk

Sigh... I ran out of things to say.

[Nick P.]

I began writing a lengthy reply to David's post, but deleted it.

Q: Why does Joe Public (no relation to Joe the Plumber.....hah!) think your average officer is almost as much a threat as the "bad guys"?

A: "When you are wearing a badge and a firearm, every civilian is a threat, until proven otherwise."

Yes, there will always be incidents where officers will have quickly and decisively move-up the action/reaction lethality scale. In this video the officer moved faster along the scale than seemed warranted.

Again, cops have dangerous, complicated, stressful, under-appreciated jobs, and we should thank those who choose to serve.

But they arent soldiers dealing with constant threat from the population they are trying to serve and protect. If they are, make them parking metre readers, and get the real constant-threat specialists involved in policing the streets....the military. At least, they dont pretend to be anything other than what they are.

As for that video, a belligerent, drunk, hysterical individual already shackled and in police custody could not be contained by THREE officers? At least they could see her hands at all times....:rolleyes:

[mathewjgano]

Great posts folks!

As a result, waiting for fully developed attacks to establish themselves, as is most often done in Kihon Waza training, in non-controlled environments, not only means you are way late, but that you were ignorant of a whole lot of cues you should have picked up on but didn't. From this point of view, while his resistance seemed "passive" it contained within it a lot of aggressive behavior.
I agree with your point about waiting too long. Aikido as I understand it implies constant proactive behavio. I also think the suspect displayed some aggressive signs of personality/intent...not to mention, assuming he did just get out of a fight, his aggression was probably greater than it would be in a normal state. These are dangerous signs in my very limited experience, so i can see why a cop would take them even more seriously.
For me it comes down to how much information the cop had. If there were a bunch of witnesses who ID'd the suspect as having been in a crime and he didn't comply, the take down seems warranted to me. If all it was was some guy calling the police and pointing the finger, I don't think it was warranted. More discussion should have taken place if that were the case...and maybe the first officer at the scene already tried that. My general view of the police is they should assume everyone is dangerous, unpredictable, and absolutely innocent until proven guilty.
Cops have a tough job. I also believe they should be held to the highest standards. The sad, but necessary result of those ideas is that cops start out with a certain disadvantage...which is why they should ALWAYS work in groups of 2 or more in my opinion. Just as I must use the whole of my resources to overpower someone stronger than me, cops must really utilize their resources. And these days they're not only fighting crime, but the increasingly negative perceptions of society at large and that is far more dangerous in the long run...in my opinion. Because it takes respectful and compliant people and makes them contemptuous and non-compliant.
Take care,
Matt

[Guilty Spark]

.

But they arent soldiers dealing with constant threat from the population they are trying to serve and protect. If they are, make them parking metre readers, and get the real constant-threat specialists involved in policing the streets....the military. At least, they dont pretend to be anything other than what they are.

I would venture that police officers are in a worse position than soldiers.
If a car is in Iraq screaming towards a military checkpoint and the soldiers shoot and kill the driver for not stopping where upon it turns out it was just a guy with bad eye sight in a hurry what happens?
Investigation team comes in, interviews people. If the soldiers followed their rules of engagement (Car did not heed hand signals, car did not heed warning shots-killed driver) then the soldiers are released of fault.

What happens when a police officer shoots someone he viewed as a threat but just turns out to be someone being an idiot? Teenager pointing an airsoft gun at him for example. Not such an open and shut case for the cop.

Add to the fact that every person a cop meets can be a violent criminal or murderer. The cop in one of these youtube videos posted in this thread has the lights punched out of him by that black male. How easy would be for that guy to grab the cops gun and put 4 rounds into his back?
Soldiers can afford to be hyper alert for a half a year or year. A street cops "tour of duty" can last 20 year. Day in day out, I can't imagine what kind of stress that puts on someone.
And when they let their guard down bam the guy behind the door of the noise complaint he's serving starts shooting. The time between violent incidents with LEOs just means they have longer time to set in for skill fade and become complaicent.

I know a lot of soldiers who have quit and tried to become cops. It surprises them how hard it can be. "I have military training why wouldn't I make a great cop?"
Because cops aren't military, they can't be. Police officers now more than ever act like social workers. The military get tasked with performing police actions more and more but at the core their killers. Not wise to have lions guarding a flock of sheep.


As for that video, a belligerent, drunk, hysterical individual already shackled and in police custody could not be contained by THREE officers? At least they could see her hands at all times....:rolleyes:

I hear this a lot over at bullshido.
It took 3 cops to hold down a guy? LOL WTF?
Yes it does. Anyone who's been in a situation with someone wigging out will tell you it can take 5 or 6 fully grown men to control someone. One on one I've controlled someone breaking their arm in the process with a kotegaeshi (sp?) and I've also been in a group of 5 guys trying to hold someone down who was half the weight of our smallest guy. I've got in a drunken fist fight against 4-5 guys and I won. Bouncer said he's actually seen it more often than you would think.

Add also the fact any injuries sustained to the idiot is going to be investigated, LEOs are constantly under the gun. Any use of force gets investigated. SO it might have taken 3 guys to get control of someone but that might have been because they didn't want to injure the dude. How often do we hear about someone resisting arrest, getting banged up then suing the police? Man I don't evvy LEOs.

People who haven't been in these situations and seen for themselves how insane it can be are hard pressed IMO to comment on use of force.

[mathewjgano]

Grant, very well said! Thank you.

[mickeygelum]

Hi All,

Let me state that the actions of the officer are in no way, shape or form excessive or cruel. That is my opinion, I have right to it, and it comes after almost 25 years on the job. I have been in the position of investigating those allegations of excessive use of force, and the are not always exonerated. I have had those types of allegations lodged against me, and have never been found excessive or unreasonable.

Sadly enough, one of the most recent nationally publicized cases is from right here in Warren, Ohio. Due to the overzealousness of the Safety Service Director, this officer retained his position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMpEr-MOSyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFH9kmKZX_o

Even more distressing is that there were four other officers at the scene, and not one of them attempted to assist placing Gill into custody. Tasers have a time and place, this was not one of them.

If you have never been in the situation to deprive the liberty of an individual, you have no base of reference on how to act. Even if you have been placed into custody and incarcerated, you were experiencing only one side of the action. Depending on your culpability and physical demeanor at that time, you still do not possess a objective view.

Mr Valadez, thank you for your post.

Sigh... I ran out of things to say.

Thank God.

Train well,

Mickey

[mickeygelum]

Mr Wagar, Thank very much for your post.

Observation and perspective are unique to each individual. They often are different when it comes to relating what has transpired. Just remember, it is the totality of circumstances, because there are many times that what you observed is not what is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVPa46W3uMY&feature=related

Train well,

Mickey

[Nick P.]

Because cops aren't military, they can't be. Police officers now more than ever act like social workers. The military get tasked with performing police actions more and more but at the core their killers. Not wise to have lions guarding a flock of sheep.

Which was my point; those guarding the sheep are thinking more like killers and less like officers of the peace. I certainly hope our social workers do not bring that attitude to their profession. Again, it cant be easy out there as an officer, but the mindset of us vs. them is in my opinion bordering on antisocial.

I hear this a lot over at bullshido.
It took 3 cops to hold down a guy? LOL WTF?
Yes it does. Anyone who's been in a situation with someone wigging out will tell you it can take 5 or 6 fully grown men to control someone. One on one I've controlled someone breaking their arm in the process with a kotegaeshi (sp?) and I've also been in a group of 5 guys trying to hold someone down who was half the weight of our smallest guy. I've got in a drunken fist fight against 4-5 guys and I won. Bouncer said he's actually seen it more often than you would think.
Add also the fact any injuries sustained to the idiot is going to be investigated, LEOs are constantly under the gun. Any use of force gets investigated. SO it might have taken 3 guys to get control of someone but that might have been because they didn't want to injure the dude. How often do we hear about someone resisting arrest, getting banged up then suing the police? Man I don't evvy LEOs.
People who haven't been in these situations and seen for themselves how insane it can be are hard pressed IMO to comment on use of force.
I didnt say it took three of them to hold her down, I said it took three of them (only one verbal instructing) to make her comply; no comply, in a police station, shackled....taser.

I will admit that, once again, that short video might have been in the context of some 30-minute attempt to make her comply....you never know.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said, hard not to.

Mr. Gelum,

From what I am seeing in this thread, neither the law enforcement community nor the public posses a completely objective view; that is why forums exist, so the points can be debated, and everyone can at least be exposed to the differing arguments.

Mr. Shaw & Mr. Valadez,

Aiki and police being obeyed are not the same thing, not by a longshot. There might an aikido-based technique in the atemi to the throat, but strategically and tactically? That is simply nailing the other guy before he nails you. In my books, that is pretty far from aikido. That is combat; we as aikidoka should be striving for something greater. Remember (yes, flowery, but he still said it)....

"Aikido is not an art to fight with enemies and defeat them. It is a way to lead all human beings to live in harmony with each other as though everyone were one family. The secret of aikido is to make yourself become one with the universe and to go along with its natural movements. One who has attained this secret holds the universe in him/herself and can say, "I am the universe."

from http://www.aikiweb.com/general/founder.html

[senshincenter]

Something interesting happened to us the other day, made me finally put an obvious two and two together. We were at a domestic, both parties diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder. The female half, quite cooperative at first, snaps when a fellow deputy was trying to escort her a bit more away from the male half - so she could get her ID which she said was in the other room and to help them stop yelling at each other, etc. She starts fighting the deputy, his on-scene partner draws his Taser, but the original deputy opts to go hands-on and asks his partner to re-holster his taser and assist with controlling her arms. The woman, about 5-7, 110 lbs, very flexible, starts fighting harder. They not wanting to injure her, continued to opt on the side of "as minimum as possible - even at the cost of prolonging the situation or suffering injury themselves." In the end, the woman ends up scratching the heck out of the initial deputy - blood everywhere. The woman is arrested for felony domestic violence and battery on a police officer. She suffers no injury and per her own statement requires no medication attention. We take her to the hospital anyways - where she is medically cleared. The deputy has to go as well - per policy. At the jail, the woman informs personnel that she has Hepatitis B. The deputy has to go back to the hospital and begin a series of examinations that last pretty much the entire shift. The chance of infection is slight, but nonetheless present - which means there's a chance of bringing it home to your spouse and kids, etc.

It made me think... The tactics of dog-piles, holds, and arm-controls predates the rampant viral infections present in the world today as much as they do the Taser. Such things, maybe, just maybe, might be out-dated, or at least the signs of the times should be considered when we make tactical decisions today.

[Nick P.]

It made me think... The tactics of dog-piles, holds, and arm-controls predates the rampant viral infections present in the world today as much as they do the Taser. Such things, maybe, just maybe, might be out-dated, or at least the signs of the times should be considered when we make tactical decisions today.

Whoa. Excellent points.

[salim]

Which was my point; those guarding the sheep are thinking more like killers and less like officers of the peace. I certainly hope our social workers do not bring that attitude to their profession. Again, it cant be easy out there as an officer, but the mindset of us vs. them is in my opinion bordering on antisocial.

I didnt say it took three of them to hold her down, I said it took three of them (only one verbal instructing) to make her comply; no comply, in a police station, shackled....taser.

I will admit that, once again, that short video might have been in the context of some 30-minute attempt to make her comply....you never know.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said, hard not to.

Mr. Gelum,

From what I am seeing in this thread, neither the law enforcement community nor the public posses a completely objective view; that is why forums exist, so the points can be debated, and everyone can at least be exposed to the differing arguments.

Mr. Shaw & Mr. Valadez,

Aiki and police being obeyed are not the same thing, not by a longshot. There might an aikido-based technique in the atemi to the throat, but strategically and tactically? That is simply nailing the other guy before he nails you. In my books, that is pretty far from aikido. That is combat; we as aikidoka should be striving for something greater. Remember (yes, flowery, but he still said it)....

"Aikido is not an art to fight with enemies and defeat them. It is a way to lead all human beings to live in harmony with each other as though everyone were one family. The secret of aikido is to make yourself become one with the universe and to go along with its natural movements. One who has attained this secret holds the universe in him/herself and can say, "I am the universe."

from http://www.aikiweb.com/general/founder.html

This is where we part ways. We don't believe in Omoto, but respect those who do. At my dojo, my sensei does not advocate spiritual Aikido concepts. We are only concern with technique and the methodology of Aiki, while having a lot of fun doing so. Spiritual concepts of soft flow are not used. We have our own individual religious beliefs of uniting humanity in a peaceful manner. Aikido for me is strictly self defense, nothing else.

[Nick P.]

This is where we part ways. We don't believe in Omoto, but respect those who do. At my dojo, my sensei does not advocate spiritual Aikido concepts. We are only concern with technique and the methodology of Aiki, while having a lot of fun doing so. Spiritual concepts of soft flow are not used. We have our own individual religious beliefs of uniting humanity in a peaceful manner. Aikido for me is strictly self defense, nothing else.

Fair enough. Well put.
To be clear, where I have had most of my aikido training, both are pursued in equally important amounts; martial effectiveness within the context of restoring or achieving peace. Hard? Yup. At odds? Sometimes, sure.

[Ketsan]

Aiki and police being obeyed are not the same thing, not by a longshot. There might an aikido-based technique in the atemi to the throat, but strategically and tactically? That is simply nailing the other guy before he nails you. In my books, that is pretty far from aikido. That is combat; we as aikidoka should be striving for something greater. Remember (yes, flowery, but he still said it)....

I'd call that kuzushi on contact, which is the heart of Aikido.


"Aikido is not an art to fight with enemies and defeat them."

What fight? I didn't see a fight. I just saw someone getting taken down, there was no fight. What I saw was the sword that decides life or death in a single instant.

[senshincenter]

Which was my point; those guarding the sheep are thinking more like killers and less like officers of the peace. I certainly hope our social workers do not bring that attitude to their profession. Again, it cant be easy out there as an officer, but the mindset of us vs. them is in my opinion bordering on antisocial....

Please don't get me wrong. I am suggesting that peace officers should at all times remain professional - which includes high levels of courtesy and compassion, etc. However, at all times, officers need to remain cautious - this is the base for my comment about all being threats until proven otherwise. For me, this is not an "us vs them," even if we broaden "us" to include all law abiding citizens and "them" to mean citizens who do not abide by the law. This is just the nature of the environment one finds him/herself in. As such, it does not mean that all actions are justified, but it does mean that under any given set of conditions, some actions become warranted as others are relegated to the side of ignorance.

For me, I see only a loose connection between listening to a peace officer and Aikido - namely in that a cultivation of Aiki promotes an overall wellness, which in turn often coordinates with good citizenship, which in turn often allows one to be in good terms with representatives of society (e.g. public officials, peace officers, fellow citizens, etc.). Still a connection is present. However, I was not referring to this when I said the technique is part of Aikido. For example, tactically the technique used is in many aikido dojo actually named - i.e. it's a prescribed and practiced technique recognized by Aikido institutions. Additionally, the suspect in his intention and body provided yin energy, which gave the opening for the yang maneuver - a blending of yin and yang. If one considers Aikido techniques to include notions of "minimum violence" and "care for the attacker" (and I do not), the technique included an attempt to capture the suspect's arm so as to lower him to the ground. Strategically, it included the notion of keep the initiative, seek kuzushi, and lead the opponent's mind away from one's true intentions.

I agree with your take on Aikido being a personal journey. However, much of our individual capacities toward the luxuries of personal journeys is based upon the fact that there are some that step in harm's way so that the rest of us do not have to. For those that do, they take what is internal with them. Thus, for me, an Aikidoka that goes into law enforcement, and that by the nature of his/her duty and its environment, has to apply a technique from Aikido's varied curriculum, does not stop practicing his/her Aikido, personal or otherwise. In short, for me, there is no absolute division between combat and Aikido - as no Man can be so clearly partitioned, so too no Art. If an Aikido cannot include or does not include a person walking into combative environments, or if an Aikido cannot maintain its integrity so as to continue to exist in such combative environments, it does not mean that no Aikido can. For me, as a citizen, I am more partial to law enforcement officers that are trained in Aikido, that practice Aikido, than do not. As a peace officer myself, I having a feeling the citizens I come into contact with, criminal and not criminal, are also grateful for my Aikido practice. This holds true even when my Aikido has to occur within a combative environment and take on objectives less important than spiritual maturity and/or Awakening, etc.

[Nick P.]

I'd call that kuzushi on contact, which is the heart of Aikido.

Kuzushi, ideally, is attained without an atemi. Otherwise, a kick in the nuts is also considered kuzushi. Or a grab and twist to the nuts would also be acceptable.


What fight? I didn't see a fight. I just saw someone getting taken down, there was no fight. What I saw was the sword that decides life or death in a single instant.

The sword was drawn I agree; the officer drew his sword first, nothing more. His sword of aiki, had there been one, would have been far more benevolent in execution and intent. Taking it out and using it first is not awase, kuzushi or anything else remotely aiki related.

Good luck, and have at 'em.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

There might an aikido-based technique in the atemi to the throat, but strategically and tactically? That is simply nailing the other guy before he nails you. In my books, that is pretty far from aikido. That is combat; we as aikidoka should be striving for something greater. Remember (yes, flowery, but he still said it)...

He also said:

"Tori: Step out on your right foot and strike directly at your opponent's face with your right te-gatana and punch his ribs with your left fist (9).
Uke: Receive your opponent's attack with the right arm.
Tori: Put strength in your right arm and cut down sharply, holding your opponent's wrist and controlling his right elbow (10). Step into his right with your left foot, keeping his right arm against your body, and pull him to your front (11). Move forward and pin him to the ground. (This is called Pin Number One.) You can then pin your partner's right arm with your legs and strike his neck with your right te-gatana..."

Cut and pasted from Budo, Teachings of the Founder of Aikido

So in my book what the cop did not only was aikido but also I think the suspect was very lucky: the cop was not O Sensei.

[Nick P.]

Mr. Valadez,
Thank you for clarifying; I may have read more into your initial post and its choice of words.

Mr. Cereijo,
I do not have my copy of Budo here at work, but I suspect that just before the quote you supplied, uke was doing something....my guess was he was attacking nage, not refusing to follow orders, or just standing around minding his own business.

[Michael Hackett]

Here's an interesting article on human nature and policing. A little long, but it sums up the attitude and mindset of most officers - certainly of my own.

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

I may be long of tooth after almost forty years, but I'm still a sheepdog by choice. I've been bitten by a wolf or two, but always was proud to have protected the sheep in my pasture.

[Ketsan]

Kuzushi, ideally, is attained without an atemi. Otherwise, a kick in the nuts is also considered kuzushi. Or a grab and twist to the nuts would also be acceptable.

Life isn't ideal, you blend, harmonise and adapt to it. To be gentle in a situation where it's best not to be isn't Aikido, in fact you've created a blockage in your decision making process which may cause more violence than there needs to be.



The sword was drawn I agree; the officer drew his sword first, nothing more. His sword of aiki, had there been one, would have been far more benevolent in execution and intent. Taking it out and using it first is not awase, kuzushi or anything else remotely aiki related.



Hmm. If he had been softer the technique might have failed, a fight would have broken out, and the situation would have become more violent, with more potential for injury and death.
In that case the compassionate thing to do is to be brutal with the take down to avoid failure and end the situation before the opponent can respond.

[Demetrio Cereijo]

Mr. Cereijo,
I do not have my copy of Budo here at work, but I suspect that just before the quote you supplied, uke was doing something....my guess was he was attacking nage, not refusing to follow orders, or just standing around minding his own business.

Well, check it when you arrive home and you'll see.

For those who don't have that book, here are the scans:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/7175/90501885lk0.th.jpg (http://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=90501885lk0.jpg)http://img249.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7775/61334723we6.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=61334723we6.jpg)http://img90.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3994/92718045cc7.th.jpg (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=92718045cc7.jpg)http://img90.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3215/54257698ga9.th.jpg (http://img510.imageshack.us/my.php?image=54257698ga9.jpg)http://img510.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Clearly uke was not attacking in technique nº 5 (shomen uchi ikkyo omote), when uke attacks first, the founder proposed technique nº 6 (shomen uchi ikkyo ura).

You can see the same approach to shomen uchi ikkyo in Budo Renshu (the one with the drawings).

[Joe Jutsu]

Witnessing and receiving excessive police force was exactly what attracted me to aikido. What an irony it was to find myself training along officers of the law.

Our deepest gratitude and sympathy should be extended to those who altruistically carry out their career of choice, be it policing the public or designing crochet.

Based on the information that we have all seen, this is but another unfortunate event illustrating the chasm between the citizenry and their elected authority. "To Protect and to Serve." What an abstract idea, no?

Now the douchebag-y "suspect" in the video pretty much fits the description of many whom terrorize the streets of my quaint, little, college town. We call them frat-boys. Doesn't make them guilty of anything but poor taste. Were there not 2 suspects? Good thing for Frat Boy that he didn't have a "TapOut" T-shirt on, 'cause that would have definitely made him the guilty party!:eek:

What we have is finger pointing, and Kodak Kourage. And we have a lot of rationalizing. The real KO of this argument (to sum it up) was :"thumbs in pockets, not hands."

Plus ki out there!

Joe

[senshincenter]

Witnessing and receiving excessive police force was exactly what attracted me to aikido. What an irony it was to find myself training along officers of the law.

Our deepest gratitude and sympathy should be extended to those who altruistically carry out their career of choice, be it policing the public or designing crochet.

Based on the information that we have all seen, this is but another unfortunate event illustrating the chasm between the citizenry and their elected authority. "To Protect and to Serve." What an abstract idea, no?

Now the douchebag-y "suspect" in the video pretty much fits the description of many whom terrorize the streets of my quaint, little, college town. We call them frat-boys. Doesn't make them guilty of anything but poor taste. Were there not 2 suspects? Good thing for Frat Boy that he didn't have a "TapOut" T-shirt on, 'cause that would have definitely made him the guilty party!:eek:

What we have is finger pointing, and Kodak Kourage. And we have a lot of rationalizing. The real KO of this argument (to sum it up) was :"thumbs in pockets, not hands."

Plus ki out there!

Joe

Something folks might want to know about calls as they come into Dispatch, prior to reaching a patrol officer...

They are almost never accurate, while they never contain all the relevant and significant information. When you get a call of "two guys fighting," it usually comes from someone else who is most likely not at the scene when you arrive. In reality, on the job, it could very well be two guys fighting (two guys disturbing the peace, two guys committing battery on each other) or it could be one guy being attacked by another party (one guy committing battery, or an Assault with a Deadly Weapon, etc.). Additionally, it could be any other number of things: e.g. domestic violence, etc. You won't know until all facts have been established by you on the scene. Prior to doing that, it is good operation to establish scene safety first. The worst thing an officer can do when arriving on scene is to hold that the call to Dispatch got it right.

Toward that end, when the officer pulls up, and if that first guy that comes to the car is the second party, it is more likely that he is not the primary element in establishing scene safety. The other guy is. This is because the first guy already, on his own, provides compliant behavior. At the same time, as far as putting the crime scene all together, it is not likely that the first guy that comes to the police car is the primary aggressor or even an equal aggressor (also demonstrated by his behavior). Add to that the fact that the other officer on scene is already giving his attention to the other party - the other party that is all amped up with non-compliant behavior - it makes policing sense to give primary attention to the second party (the guy that gets taken down). Once he's compliant and/or in control, the investigation would/should continue - which is not seen in the video clip - but not until then.

On another note: The totality of the suspect being non-compliant and/or an officer safety issue is not solely covered by his hands/thumbs being in his pocket. He is demonstrating a whole lot of other officer safety issues. However, that said, from my view, it looks like he puts his right hand in his pocket at 00:54 seconds. Additionally, and nevertheless, should one believe it is only his thumbs that are in his pockets: putting your thumbs in your pocket while keeping the remainder of your hand outside of the pocket is the way you conceal and draw a tactical folder (knife). In many ways, under certain garment designs, that hand position should make an officer more nervous than the hand fully in the pocket.

This video shows how to draw a tactical folder - you can see the thumbing technique:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOJjmvzN04A

This video provides a little more context on the policing situation regarding establishing scene safety in situations like the Vegas video. The pics of the knife wound are reported to be on an officer that was attacked by a knife-wielding suspect. (warning: graphic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

dmv

[Joe Jutsu]

Something folks might want to know about calls as they come into Dispatch, prior to reaching a patrol officer...

They are almost never accurate, while they never contain all the relevant and significant information. When you get a call of "two guys fighting," it usually comes from someone else who is most likely not at the scene when you arrive. In reality, on the job, it could very well be two guys fighting (two guys disturbing the peace, two guys committing battery on each other) or it could be one guy being attacked by another party (one guy committing battery, or an Assault with a Deadly Weapon, etc.). Additionally, it could be any other number of things: e.g. domestic violence, etc. You won't know until all facts have been established by you on the scene. Prior to doing that, it is good operation to establish scene safety first. The worst thing an officer can do when arriving on scene is to hold that the call to Dispatch got it right.

Toward that end, when the officer pulls up, and if that first guy that comes to the car is the second party, it is more likely that he is not the primary element in establishing scene safety. The other guy is. This is because the first guy already, on his own, provides compliant behavior. At the same time, as far as putting the crime scene all together, it is not likely that the first guy that comes to the police car is the primary aggressor or even an equal aggressor (also demonstrated by his behavior). Add to that the fact that the other officer on scene is already giving his attention to the other party - the other party that is all amped up with non-compliant behavior - it makes policing sense to give primary attention to the second party (the guy that gets taken down). Once he's compliant and/or in control, the investigation would/should continue - which is not seen in the video clip - but not until then.

On another note: The totality of the suspect being non-compliant and/or an officer safety issue is not solely covered by his hands/thumbs being in his pocket. He is demonstrating a whole lot of other officer safety issues. However, that said, from my view, it looks like he puts his right hand in his pocket at 00:54 seconds. Additionally, and nevertheless, should one believe it is only his thumbs that are in his pockets: putting your thumbs in your pocket while keeping the remainder of your hand outside of the pocket is the way you conceal and draw a tactical folder (knife). In many ways, under certain garment designs, that hand position should make an officer more nervous than the hand fully in the pocket.

This video shows how to draw a tactical folder - you can see the thumbing technique:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOJjmvzN04A

This video provides a little more context on the policing situation regarding establishing scene safety in situations like the Vegas video. The pics of the knife wound are reported to be on an officer that was attacked by a knife-wielding suspect. (warning: graphic):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0fPL4f3Eqc

dmv

Thank you for your continuing effort to clear up the legality of this issue. I think you only serve to support my argument of what a slippery slope it really is out there.

So as an officer armed with bludgeoning, chemical, and projectile weapons, he is also allowed to take down a possibly ornery but relatively passive "suspect" with a potentially lethal takedown (aggrandized worse-cased scenario, I know) without asking him/her if they have a weapon? And he has Kevlar on too? Where's the back-up? Where's the necessity for immediate action? Who's the scary one here?

I find the rally-ing call that some of you out there would have done more to be completely disturbing.
:ki:

[Guilty Spark]

Which was my point; those guarding the sheep are thinking more like killers and less like officers of the peace. I certainly hope our social workers do not bring that attitude to their profession. Again, it cant be easy out there as an officer, but the mindset of us vs. them is in my opinion bordering on antisocial.

Hey we're on the same page cool.
I agree. Lions shouldn't guard sheep. Sheep dogs should.
Police officers with an us vs them mindset IS toxic for sure. I think it's a hazzard that comes with the job. SOldiers have it too. They need to frce themselves to not treat every person they meet as someone waiting to place an IED under them, even though thats exactly what happens. Shake someones hand by day, at night they dig an ied into the side of the road.
It's stressful. IMO police officers are under constantly stress. Day in and day out they work with the scum of society (among the good people). Getting lied to by everyone (Oh I was speeding? I didn't notice..). Psychologically I think that's what pushesthese guys to an us vs them attitude. Some thing they need to identify.


I didnt say it took three of them to hold her down, I said it took three of them (only one verbal instructing) to make her comply; no comply, in a police station, shackled....taser.
Sorry. Tasers are a whole different argument, I've seen 100 pages of posts about tasers. Theres some of my friends here who I would taser if I could get my hands one one :)

Something else to consider (generally) about police officers. Yes I do think they are doing a whole social worker thing, but they ALSO are now dealing with criminals using hardcore weapons like assault rifles. Dealing with ex military types who are marksmen and experts at fighting in houses and city blocks.
Police officer with a 9mm who shoots it on a range say twice a year and a disgrunteled Iraq vet with an AK, armor piercing rounds and a years worth of two way range time in a city street setting. Scary stuff.

The point I'm going for is that when it comes to use of force police run the gambit. From a guy just laid of from his job who just drank too much and is taking it out on the anonymous face of a uniform or a disgrunteled guy who wants to commit suicide by cop.

attacking[/B] nage, not refusing to follow orders, or just standing around minding his own business.
Refusing to follow lawful direction can be the prelude to an attack too though. Depending on the situation I;m not going to wait until someone attacks me if there is implied intent.

If I'm in an altercation with someone and they say to me "Look man I don't wanna fight" 4 times out of 5 they're gearing up to throw a punch.

I've found that when someone refuses to follow orders/direction often they are expecting the person giving said direction to become more forcefull in their request. This in a way validates them becoming angry and/or violent. People need a push so they force the police officer (or whoever) to push them over the edge enabling them to become more violent.

A woman in a locked room with 4 cops. Is it logical that she becomes violent? No, but the more she resists and works herself up the more violent she makes herself. Then she gets tased or roughly held down etc.. and screams police brutality.

Sometimes police DO go over the line of course. I'm sure we can find hundreds of youtube videos as examples of both.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Thank you for your continuing effort to clear up the legality of this issue. I think you only serve to support my argument of what a slippery slope it really is out there.

So as an officer armed with bludgeoning, chemical, and projectile weapons, he is also allowed to take down a possibly ornery but relatively passive "suspect" with a potentially lethal takedown (aggrandized worse-cased scenario, I know) without asking him/her if they have a weapon? And he has Kevlar on too? Where's the back-up? Where's the necessity for immediate action? Who's the scary one here?

I find the rally-ing call that some of you out there would have done more to be completely disturbing.
:ki:

My assumption would be that you have never been in this position of making a tactical decision.

Ask if he has a weapon?

He was asked a simple question to remove his hands from his pocket. The officer even gave him the reason why. "You are making me nervous".

Okay, so now ask him if he has a weapon?

"Why yes I do officer, and it is right....HERE!"

[mickeygelum]

Where's the back-up? Where's the necessity for immediate action? Who's the scary one here?


You are...The officer prudently reacted with reasonable non-lethal force to a potentially lethal encounter and you are complaining.

Realistically, I order an individual to put his hands in full view, and he reaches into his pockets, he will be at gunpoint.

The next action will be decided by him.

A LEO is charged with the responsibility to protect life, limb and property...including his own.

This occurred in MetroLVPD, you are not in Kansas anymore...

Mickey

[senshincenter]

Trying to tie this back into Aikido in uncontrolled environments in a bit more general way...

Kevin's point about being in a position where a tactical decision has to be made at the speed of life is key here. While it's true peace officers are part social worker, etc., they still have to make these kinds of tactical decisions daily - hourly in some cities. These decisions, the speed of life capacity to think and act on the go, to possess awareness and martial intelligence enough to not only see what most do not see, but to see that early (if not first) and to also be able to follow tactical chains of possible outcomes (like a chess master does) without being attached to any of them (should things change/when things do change), are what is needed. This is the martial skill that bring Aikido, and any art for that matter, into a realm of street viability.

This lack of interest in gaining and maintaining initiative, perhaps even a disdain and dismissal for initiative, is a luxury one in uncontrolled environments cannot afford to either keep and/or be chained by. Additionally, in our understanding of Aikido at our dojo, it's not even supposed to be present in Kihon Waza. There, as on the street, one is supposed to gain a subtle enough sensitivity to uke's intention, such that it is addressed long before it manifests itself fully in the body.

Here's one incident with even less cues than in the Vegas video - it's from the book, "Blood Lessons," chapter "Danger Cues." Again, this kind of stuff happens all of the time.

(Traffic Stop)
Lombardo cautiously returned to the 4Runner and confronted the man waiting in the passenger seat.

"Do you have an ID?" Lombardo asked.
"No."
"What is your last name?"
Stone Silence.
"What's your last name?"
No response.
"Look, before we get into your identity crisis, why don't you step out of your car."
As the passenger exited, Lombardo pinned him in the apex of the open door. "Do you have anything on your person that can hurt me?" he asked.
"This guy gave me the coldest, eeriest stare I'd ever seen," Lombardo said. "He opened his mouth as if to speak, but didn't say a word. It was the scariest response I've ever gotten to that question."
Making a split-second decision, Lombardo grabbed the passenger, forced him against the 4Runner, and handcuffed him. Within seconds, he found the guns tucked in the suspect's waistband. Moments later, the third gun was recovered from under the driver's seat.
"Those were the first firearms I'd ever pulled off someone in a vehicle. It just reinforced to me that you can't call any motor vehicle stop routine," Lombardo reported.

What I think one has to realize is that there is martial arts, martial sport, and guys fighting in the street, and then there's a whole other realm of violence. The difference between the two realms is the stakes. In the latter world, the stakes are more often permanent and irreversible than not. In this latter world, because the stakes are so potent as far as their capacity to influence several to many lives, the so-called fight happens way earlier than anyone that does not partake in this world could probably imagine. In my opinion, if you want your Aikido to be able to function in the street, this is what is most needed. Technical matters will not solve this issue at all. In the end, this is a mental/spiritual issue and nothing else.

[Kevin Leavitt]

David wrote:

In my opinion, if you want your Aikido to be able to function in the street, this is what is most needed. Technical matters will not solve this issue at all. In the end, this is a mental/spiritual issue and nothing else.

I could not agree more!

Might I once again remind that the suspect was apprehended and apparently not hurt. Is this endstate not important when considering Use of Force?

[wideawakedreamer]

And he has Kevlar on too?

I'm no cop, but even I know that Kevlar doesn't cover EVERY part of your body. Even if the cop was indeed wearing Kevlar, he still had his head and neck exposed.

[sorokod]

This thread is quite obviously polarized between "civilians" and "cops" or as charmingly called in one of the referred documents, "sheep" and "sheepdog". Here are some sheepish remarks.

* The state of affairs presented here by the "sheepdogs" is by no means universal. In London, a single case of a person being shot by police caused a major public outcry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes). Also, police in UK, generally speaking, is not equipped with firearms.
Comments regarding speed, magnitude of violence and such required from a policeman, should be seen in the context of the poster's country which is USA in most cases. It would be interesting to see opinions from members of police forces outside of North America.

* Some official statistics for the year 2006 in USA:

48 Officers were feloniously killed
66 Officers were accidently killed (automobile/motorcycle accidents, crossfires, training sessions, etc...)
376 Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement
241 Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen

in addition:

45 The average number of people dying in one day as a result of "Slips, Trips and Falls" accidents.

sources:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/accidentallykilled.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_13.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000001-d000100/d000006/d000006.html

* A poster suggested that there is similarity between policing and military actions. Given these numbers there is no similarity.

* One could claim that the small number of "Officers that were feloniously killed" is a direct result of the aggressive policing tactics. I do not know how to argue this rationally, but my gut feeling is that the numbers are to low for this to be true.

* As to the actions of the Las Vegas cop in the original video, what relevant statistics do we have? Well it's like this:

Officers were feloniously killed in the state of Nevada by year:
2006 1
2005 0
2004 0
2003 0
2002 0
2001 1

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2006/table1.html

So between the options of the cop exercising a healthy "sen sen no sen" or deciding up front to kick some ass, the numbers favor option B.

[mathewjgano]

Thank you for your continuing effort to clear up the legality of this issue. I think you only serve to support my argument of what a slippery slope it really is out there.

So as an officer armed with bludgeoning, chemical, and projectile weapons, he is also allowed to take down a possibly ornery but relatively passive "suspect" with a potentially lethal takedown (aggrandized worse-cased scenario, I know) without asking him/her if they have a weapon? And he has Kevlar on too? Where's the back-up? Where's the necessity for immediate action? Who's the scary one here?

I find the rally-ing call that some of you out there would have done more to be completely disturbing.
:ki:
It is a slippery slope to be sure: human percpetion is involved. I don't really see how any of us can pass categorical judgement on this case. Unless some of us have more information than what's evident in this thread, we're missing some potentially crucial pieces of information...there are some big time/info gaps present.
Looking at the suspect, I think I understand why the distrust on the part of the cop. That said, i think more talking probably should have been done too...but again, that route may have been firmly tried for all we know. The video is, in my not-so-humble opinion, a poor example of what we should be advertizing on COPS. That said, and while I think the legal debate is very useful, I'm beginning to wonder how this all relates to Aikido.
How does the information in this thread affect your training?

[Michael Hackett]

The statistics quoted are compiled by each US agency and submitted to the FBI. There is a companion document that describes briefly how each officer was killed. In most years domestic violence, traffic stops and the execution of search and arrest warrants lead the list of activities.

In my personal experience, 95% of the people I came in contact with on duty were decent, law abiding folks. Sometimes they were under a lot of stress and sometimes had made an uncharacteristic mistake. The other 5% were truly dangerous human beings, perhaps sociopathic. The problem is that they look the same and you can't tell until you've spent a few minutes with them. Then add in alcohol and/or drugs and it becomes more understandable why we are so wary. The last person to physically attack me was a fifty-something female schoolteacher who had been badly beaten by her schollteacher husband. She tried to take my head off with a frying pan as we arrested her drunken husband. Just another night on patrol.

Some of us are mean and violent, but thankfully we get forced out of the business. Some of us make mistakes and over-react and get punished. Most of us do our jobs honorably, add a little value to our community and go home to our loved ones at the end of watch.

[senshincenter]

I think of myself as a "citizen" - even when on duty, I feel that I am part of the community. I aim to always be courteous with those I am serving as a peace officer - with nearly ever person thanking me for the duty I performed, even suspects/arrestees, even arrestees I've had to use force on to control. For me, this is not in opposition to remaining tactically wise. The main two reasons for this are: 1) As much of a tactical situation happens in the pre-said, pre-moved, and the pre-seen, courteous speech and action can happen along side of these things - in many ways working to distract a suspect from understand one's tactics (which is good). And, 2) When everything is done correctly, the permanence and irreversibility of real-stakes un-controlled environments is subverted. This in turn allows one to always go from a high tactical/low courteous level to a low tactical level/high courteous level easily.

I think, if there is a division here in this thread, it is as simple as being between experience and lack-of-experience. This holds true whether it is a national one, a law enforcement one, a legal one, an Aikido one, and even a real-stakes non-controlled environment one. It's hardly between law enforcement and non-law enforcement, as many folks posting are not peace officers (regardless of what side of the debate they are coming down on).

Still, take away the uniform, the policing situation, and you are left with a simple question, by which one's Aikido can be defined and determined as street viable or not: "How early does a self-defense situation start for you?" By extension: "What tell-tale signs should I be aware of when attempting to defend myself with Aikido (or any other art)?"

In my opinion, as I said earlier, if one waits for a commonly "recognizable" attack to occur, or even a "recognizable" aggressive intent, akin to what one sees at a gross level in Kihon Waza training, one's Aikido can only translate into street practicality under the following conditions: No weapons are involved; one is not outnumbered, one is larger than his/her opponent, one is faster than his/her opponent, and/or luck is on one's side. To sum that up, as far as the martial question goes, one is only learning an Aikido that is designed to function against single opponents, who agree not to arm themselves, who are smaller and slower than you, and requires you to be lucky. No doubt, there are a lot of martial arts that seek to function under these guidelines, but if one wants something more of their Aikido, one is going to have to learn to not be shocked by how thumbs in the pocket and an open mouth can be interpreted as an attack.

On the spiritual side, should one feel that such considerations are never the aim of Aikido training... For me, Aikido's spiritual aims, like any, are fruitless if they can only exist on the mountain top, away from the real world. For example, when it comes to spiritual maturity, I would see more of it in a person that can go from violence and be detached enough to immediately come back down to courteous/compassionate behavior than in a person that practices such control only within the confines of the dojo's controlled environment. I feel this way because for a spiritual tradition to be viable, it must never look to disconnect itself from the social world. It must always keep its feet on the ground. When it doesn't, when it cannot, it's in the high period of its existence - the time right before its fall into utter uselessness. If you want to see how mature you are in your Aikido practice, in my opinion, like the old spiritual quests of old, venture into the realm of law enforcement and work to harmonize all of these elements into a spiritual wellness that supports not only you in times of need, but also the people you are serving and protecting, the suspects you are having to control, and your family, friends, and co-workers that depend upon you remaining centered at all times.

[sorokod]

Michael

Thank you for a post that conveys some of the complexities associated with your difficult and important job.

[tenkan]

Racism, police brutality=takedown 2 points for the cops!
Sign the perp up for the white college fund.

[Stefan Stenudd]

Regarding realism and aikido, did you see my column:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15062

I thought that a lot of you guys would comment it, tearing it to pieces :)

[Kevin Leavitt]

Stefan,

I just started to read it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will look it over today. I want to make sure I understand it correctly before I offer comment as it is very obvious you have thought this out and written it very well.

[Guilty Spark]

Racism, police brutality=takedown 2 points for the cops!
Sign the perp up for the white college fund.

Did you post this while drinking?

Use of force is a tricky thing for warriors.

Use too much and you're ass is in big trouble.
Use too little and you might get killed.