The Consequences of Fighting

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[SoloAvatar]

I wanted to share an event that happened at my workplace a little while ago. And while I am only a minor character in this event, I believe I have learned a lot from it about the power that is built into the Aikido philosophy.

While working I hear desperate calls for me (as one of the managers at the store I work at) to go to the front of the store. Upon exiting the store I'm confronted with images that don't click very well with what I'm used to. And I'm pretty sure steam was pouring out of my ears as I tried to process what I was seeing. An employee who was coming to work sitting on the curb (we'll call him Jim), a bike laying in the parking lot, a homeless man laying unconscious on the asphalt with blood coming out his ears, and about 30 customers all gawking.

The police, ambulance, and fire truck already on the scene were putting Jim in handcuffs and put him in the back of a police car. The paramedics putting the newly conscious homeless man on a stretcher and racing him to the hospital. My boss walks up to me and tells me to go look at the security cameras and see what had happened.

Upon finding the footage I see Jim running with the bike (which he uses to get to work) while being chased by the homeless man. The man kicked the bike sending it flying and starts swinging at Jim. After being hit three times in the head by the man I see as Jim takes a boxing stance and with one punch hits the man in the jaw knocking him unconscious. The man falls to the ground hitting his head, while Jim goes and sits on the curb.

Taking the information down to my boss, I see Jim has been released from the police car. He was still shaking from the shock of the whole experience. While kneeling down to give him some gentle words I see two large gouges on his hand from being cut by the mans teeth. The paramedics treated his wounds on the scene but told him to go get a tetanus shot from the hospital.

After a far to long, the scene wound down and everyone involved was exhausted from dealing with the events. We learned later from the police that Jim was completely innocent as the event was all self defense. Everything was all fine and dandy, right?

A few things happened afterwards that really put everything into a different light.

1) Jim's hand got very infected, which is common for wounds cause by someones mouth. Its a very dirty place.

2) The homeless man went into a coma in the hospital and had to be put on life support. (He's currently not expected to live)

3) Jim has to deal with two very scary possibilities. The homeless man had hepatitis and HIV. So now Jim has to get testing done to determine if he was infected with either.

In asking myself what if I was in Jim's place, what would I have done. Well we don't know how the origination of the confrontation started. But I could say I never would have gotten into the starting confrontation. Would I have run like Jim if I was in his place? definitely. Would I have hit the guy like Jim did? I don't believe anyone can truly predict how they would react, but I hope all my years on training would have ended the situation without the possibility of killing someone even if it was not intentional. I think the moral of this experiences is, fighting no matter the reason will have consequences. SO DON'T FIGHT!

Any other perspectives would be appreciated,
Stephen

[Janet Rosen]

The outcomes are indeed very sad.
However I don't think what happened was a fight. I think what happened was one person was attacking another. When the person being attacked felt he could no longer run away, he took appropriate steps to defend himself.
It has to be understood that nobody can control the universe or all variables therein. Doing the right thing, or perhaps to put it better, "a right thing" doesn't guarantee a good outcome. It doesn't guarantee peace of mind. It only guarantees that you have acted in accordance with your principles and ethics.
Me, I might have done a different thing from the punch to the face, but I definitely would have taken SOME kind of action like that. And yes, live with the consequences because I'd rather that than have been the one dead on the ground.

[Mary Eastland]

I think what "Jim" did was perfect. He was there and he did what he needed to do to protect himself. It sounds like a scary situation for him.

I used to work in a library. There was a homeless man that harassed us all the time. One time he came charging at me because I asked him to get off the computer as we were closing. He was big and he knew he was scary. As he came through the first set of doors, I slipped out the next set and came back in the side door and locked him out. I knew exactly what to do because I was paying attention and went with my gut. He was mad because he got locked out but I was safe I and I really didn't care.

[Basia Halliop]

It's true that we don't know the beginning of the 'story' or the history of the attacker. Maybe there was some argument or altercation first that led to the homeless man chasing Jim, on the other hand maybe the homeless man was crazy or drunk or something and attacked unprovoked. Did he want something? Was he just in a rage? Could the situation have been prevented? I don't know.

But if the suggestion is that the negative consequences of what happened are due to Jim's choosing to 'fight' back, then it seems only logical to point out that NOT fighting back in such a case also has consequences. Every choice has consequences. There's just no consequence-free choice. And the consequences are never entirely predictable. E.g., most people punched in the head don't go into a coma or die, even if it's obviously not good for you. (In your story Jim got hit in the head multiple times himself).

We'll never know what would have happened if he never hit back because it didn't happen, but there's no reason I see to believe the consequences would have been less negative. Seems rather more likely they'd be even more negative.

Maybe Jim would have been beaten to death and the homeless man shot by the police. Who knows.

[Alic]

It is extremely sad that this should happen... What Jim did was perfectly fine, since he had done all he could to stop the violence. He tried to remove himself from the bad situation and didn't throw the first strike. Now, perhaps away from the camera he had said something to start all of this drama, but he was already choosing to disengage from the violence. At that point, it became the homeless man's fault for choosing to continue the violence by chasing and attacking a fleeing man. He CHOOSE violence, and as a result, he lost his life by this choice.

This isn't the greatest result, sure, but neither is Jim being murdered in cold blood for any reason. He tried to escape, and was cornered. Already chased down and attacked, he probably thought that he had no more chances of escape, and decided to stand his ground.

Perhaps this wasn't the best choice he could've done, and maybe he should've came into the store to ask for help, but what if that caused others in the store to get pulled into the dangerous situation? He did what he felt was necessary, and he was able to put an end to the danger, however brutal an end it was. He is still alive, thanks to his choices and actions, and even if he was infected with those dieases, at the very least he's still alive to talk about it. No one could've predicted that the homeless man would die from those injuries. Many people all over the world take those kind of hits, and they were usually injuried but otherwise fine after. Since Jim had not intended on ending the homeless man's life, he shouldn't be blamed for what is essentially an accidental death.

Perhaps if Jim had known Aikido and used an Osae-waza, he couldn't ended this confrontation without becoming injuried and possibily infected, and perhaps the homeless man would've lived. Let's hope the homeless man is able to cheat death and recover, and Jim is not infected. After all of this ends, perhaps Jim will benefit from some Aikido training? Certainly, it would help him recover a bit from this episode, if anything...

[Michael Hackett]

I have no concern about Jim's conduct as it has been described. I'm glad he's OK and sorry the homeless guy was so severely injured. Our homeless population here in Southern California are legion and a very high percentage are seriously mentally ill. Some can be quite volatile and dangerous. It is a damn shame that we haven't the resources to truly help these folks and this is just another example of how our system here ignores these invisible people. I suspect Jim will suffer over what he was forced to do and will have scars of his own. Tragic in all respects. Sorry for the thread drift, but I've been hopelessly dealing with these folks for many years and have seen this same scenario played out many times.

[sakumeikan]

Hi,
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding this affair , assuming that the homeless man dies,Jim will be affected by the experience.Jim might well learn to live with this but he certainly will not forget the incident .Cheers, Joe.

[dps]

Good topic for thought.
Jim did the right thing in defending himself.

Will Jim have hiv, hepatitis, or other health problems from this incident. Does he have health insurance or pays for his own medical care. Will Jim get sued by the homeless man, his relatives or an advocacy group. Will he lose his job over this?

What affect could any of the above have on his relationship with his girlfriend, wife, children, friends or coworkers?
Without becoming paranoid what steps can you do to prepare for the aftermath of an incident like this?

dps

[lbb]

In asking myself what if I was in Jim's place, what would I have done. Well we don't know how the origination of the confrontation started. But I could say I never would have gotten into the starting confrontation.

Hello Stephen,

With all respect for the upsetting situation that you've been placed in, without knowing how the thing started, I don't think you can know that you wouldn't have gotten into the confrontation. By virtue of your training and perhaps other life experiences, you have more options than Jim, and also more exposure to ideas that could allow you to see what options are available in a situation. Whether any of those options would have been available in this situation is unclear, however.

It is always good for all of us to be reminded of just how easy it is to harm another human being, and how lasting the consequences of that harm can be. Whether experienced at first hand or read about on an internet forum, these reminders are deeply disturbing to any reflective and imaginative person, and so they should be. Our training can save us from some things. Our life experiences, in combination with our imagination that allows us to foresee possible consequences and outcomes, can save us from many more. Ultimately, though, we need to be humble and recognize that no matter how we prepare and no matter what we think we're capable of, life can always throw us a situation that we don't handle gracefully. We need to be humble, because in the end, life will always humble us.

[graham christian]

Nice story and a great emphasis which truly shows there is a something which is not 'self defence' which would have been better to do. This is Aikido in my experience, this something else.

Unfortunately it's hard to see because without the concept of self defense we tend to think there is only giving in or flight. Aikido to me is none of these things and includes neither fight, (self defence) flight or doing nothing.

So I believe you did recognize the power built in to the Aikido philosophy.

Peace.G.

[philipsmith]

"Jim" did exactly the right thing.
I agree it may well have serious consequences for both people involved but any feelings of guilt (although inevitable) for the homeless guys injuries are misplaced in my opinion (you reap what you sow).

As for the comment about not getting into the situation:

a) you can't possibly know that
b) it's very judgemental

Hope both protagonists in this conflict recover

[crbateman]

I can't see how "Jim" could have acted any differently from a moral or ethical standpoint, so his conscience will adjust. However, this incident does point out how truly dangerous it can be to allow yourself to get bitten, or to punch somebody in the mouth as a way of defense. I think that, if a similar thing were to happen to me (and it has), I'd try to go with a different move if available. In this case, it might have been safer for both of them if Jim had hit him with the bicycle.

[Lyle Laizure]

...but I hope all my years on training would have ended the situation without the possibility of killing someone even if it was not intentional.

If you want to avoid the possibility of killing someone you will need to submit.

[phitruong]

If you want to avoid the possibility of killing someone you will need to submit.

what if that someone is you?

[SeiserL]

IMHO, there are always consequences for fighting and there are consequences for not fighting. Life is very cause and effect that way. Perhaps the biggest question is which set of consequences you can live with?

[Alberto_Italiano]

(...)

A few things happened afterwards that really put everything into a different light.

1) Jim's hand got very infected, which is common for wounds cause by someones mouth. Its a very dirty place.

2) The homeless man went into a coma in the hospital and had to be put on life support. (He's currently not expected to live)

3) Jim has to deal with two very scary possibilities. The homeless man had hepatitis and HIV. So now Jim has to get testing done to determine if he was infected with either.

In asking myself what if I was in Jim's place, what would I have done. Well we don't know how the origination of the confrontation started. But I could say I never would have gotten into the starting confrontation. Would I have run like Jim if I was in his place? definitely. Would I have hit the guy like Jim did? I don't believe anyone can truly predict how they would react, but I hope all my years on training would have ended the situation without the possibility of killing someone even if it was not intentional. I think the moral of this experiences is, fighting no matter the reason will have consequences. SO DON'T FIGHT!

Any other perspectives would be appreciated,
Stephen

It has been recently emphasized that in a real situation your best option is an armlock:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19209

That's sound advice by guys who have been there.

ps unfortunately the armlock positions are all positions whence also a kotegaeshi may flow out of your hands naturally, particularly if uke escapes your armlocking attempts because odds that you end up precisely with his wrist in your hands are significant (there is a reason why at least 2 persons said in that thread that armlock is your first choice and kotegaeshi the second one).
However, the consequences of a succesful kotegaeshi on concrete or in a bar may be devastating.

[Alberto_Italiano]

About my reply above, since we're speaking of dire consequences, I forgot another important detail:

when armlocked, never tenkan if in bars or places where there is furniture. Do only mild tenkans, watching what's around you and uke's head.
Tenkan controls grounding, but not what happens to uke while spinning - if after a succesful armlock you vigorously tenkan in a bar, odds that the bent guy crushes his head against marbles or wood or steel are high.

However, also while grounding, you may bend a live guy and ground a dead one, if while bending him he hits violently the corner of a nearby table, or gets a glass shoved into his eyes.

You may be justified only against an armed opponent.

Armlock without mercy - after that, with all cautions.

[Benjamin Green]

It sounds more like the consequences of hitting someone in the head with a closed fist. If he'd smacked a palm strike in the guy's forehead he'd not have cut his hand. If he'd kicked the guy in the gut, he'd not have cut his hand and, in all likelihood, not have killed him....

He reacted, which is most of what anyone does in a fight. He was unlucky in that his reaction didn't meet all the standards he might have wished for from it. Perhaps he trained as a boxer, that would explain a lot about why he punched to the head.

In any case, I don't think his reaction serves a good general argument against fighting. There are equally negative outcomes in some situations from not fighting.

[genin]

I'd love to know why Jim was running with the bike instead of riding it, and why the altercation started in the first place.

He handled the situation appropriately. Regardless of the technique he chose to use to defend himself, it worked--that's all that matters in combat! He was not obligated to use the minimum force necessary, especially given the circumstances. If I was dealing with an inferior opponent, I might resort to good ol' fashion boxing as well. However, face punching is always dangerous for both parties, as we have seen.

As far as what could've been done to avoid the fight, we'd have to know what led up to it. I've not known many homeless people to be raving lunatics that violently assualt passers-by. Clearly this individual was in attack mode for whatever reason, and that led to his undoing. It's unfortunate, and I hope that at least Jim makes a full recovery, if that outcome is not possible for both individuals.

[jackie adams]

IMHO, there are always consequences for fighting and there are consequences for not fighting. Life is very cause and effect that way. Perhaps the biggest question is which set of consequences you can live with?

Hello, again everyone! You don't think this way when you are young, especially young men where testosterone gets translates into aggression and violence.

[lbb]

Hello, again everyone! You don't think this way when you are young, especially young men where testosterone gets translates into aggression and violence.

I dunno, Jackie. Biology is often cited, but when there are so many social and cultural factors that give tacit approval to fighting and aggression from men, I think it's hard to know how much of a role biology plays. Certainly I'd like to think that this kind of behavior isn't biologically determined.

[Michael Hackett]

Roger, in most jurisdictions, Jim WAS required to use the "minimum force necessary". By definition, any force beyond the minimum necessary in the circumstances is legally considered excessive force. That terminology creates a whole new can of worms in that the legal standard and analysis changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the bottom line is that one is required to use the minimum force necessary to rely on claims of self-defense or justification. How that is defined and determined is jurisdiction specific.

[jackie adams]

I dunno, Jackie. Biology is often cited, but when there are so many social and cultural factors that give tacit approval to fighting and aggression from men, I think it's hard to know how much of a role biology plays. Certainly I'd like to think that this kind of behavior isn't biologically determined.

Hello Mary Malmros, It is nice that you responded with a good point. They walk hand in hand.

Young men are quick to grab and wheel the sword. Older experienced men contemplate the consequences at hand, first.

[genin]

Uh oh, nature vs. nurture discussion, look out...lol.

I'm not sure how old Jim is. Maybe he's a fairly young guy. The testosterone thing only goes so far. These aren't wild Grizly bears in the peak of mating season. They are socialized human beings who have full control over themselves and their actions.

I would be more inclined to say that his choice to swing on the homeless man was a reflection of his personality and maturity level. And I don't mean anything negative by that. It's just that some people are not combative or confrontational and would never engage in a fight even if provoked. Others might draw from previous life experiences and realize that this mentally ill person who is acting out can just as easily be shooed away as violently assaulted. These are all considerations, choices, and actions that have to be taken together as a whole in a single moment.

[Michael Douglas]

...However, the consequences of a succesful kotegaeshi on concrete or in a bar may be devastating.
Alberto your last line is interesting but I have to point out that 'devastating' would imply a consequence other than a broken or torn arm : non-aikidoka when "kotegaeshid" :confused: do not hit the ground with their heads. (You can all argue that point, you're welcome.)

What would Ueshiba have done?
Stotted him in the throat with the bike. No, really.

[Garth]

i would submit that reasoning with a crazy man or trying to figure out why he has attacked only serves to dull the senses.
In a untrained individual you get a flight or fight response , in a trained individual you get a response hopefully educated.
Such reasoning is not tolerated by grizzly bears or on the plains of the Sarenghetti
or are the participants capable.(same with truly crazy people) We have removed ourselves further from these realities. And good people wind up dead or maimed because of it all the time.
It is allegedly a civilized society.
Jim was not the one who allowed a mentally ill probably addicted person to roam the streets and terrorize people in an alleged civilized society.
If this thread turns out to be about the value of Aikido training as opposed to "fighting",
I would propose a quote from Ellis Amdur's book, "There is no tenkan without irimi" (not sure if the first or second book) How you choose to irimi again is up to you the attackee,(training anyone?) But you can spend your whole life tenkanning (avoidance, getting out of the way)
when all you really needed was a irimi.
Figuring out societies ills as to why? is a much too complicated matter and better left to the academics. Once you are attacked and as to what to do with that attack would be a much better discussion.:D for this website.

[jackie adams]

Greetings Aikido community, hope all it well and training is enjoyed. I can't help see a similarity with the Travon Martin and Zimmerman case (TMZC). No one panic, I am not going to turn this into one of those verses them and us online debates over the particulars of that incident. The Stand Your Ground Law (SYGL) how it played out for Zimmerman has some similarities. If Jim could have use more than necessary force, if possible, before the attack he may not been exposed to life-threatening disease or even injured. Can we assume Jim was not trained to defense himself adequately because he was injured. Therefore, his understanding of what level of force needed adequately is outside of Jim's control. Jim like Zimmerman may have used too much, or in Jim's case not enough because of his sustained injuries. He wasn't able to adequately protect himself. Aikido training as self-defense training. As powerful as boxing is a fighting sport, it isn't a method of self defense on the street. It could be if the paradigm is modified for self-defense.

Once the homeless guy kicked the bike, Jim could of used the number one rule in self-defense, stay away of the homeless man getting close, keeping a distance/ma-ai between him and the attacker. Jim could have ran as the homeless guy closed in on him to attack him. But instead, Jim didn't, and contact was made that got Jim his injuries and possible deadly diseases. Aikido in my view has a great technique that is crucial in all martial arts, but it Aikido can be used outside the realm of fighting, to not fight. Ma-ai in the Aikido sense to avoid violence is that technique. One that would have worked better for Jim.

*Jim being well aware of the homeless man and on guard is something coupled with ma-ai in my comment.

[Belt_Up]

If Jim could have use more than necessary force,

Legally, that's excessive force. Morally or practically speaking why would you use more than 'necessary' force? Although technically impossible to judge when within a given situation, I can't think why anyone would correctly evaluate the level of force needed and then go "You know what, forget it." and apply more. If there's a situation you can sort out with a slap, there's no need to pull a knife and get stabbing.

Can we assume Jim was not trained to defense himself adequately because he was injured.

No. Getting injured is a by-product of fighting regardless of how well you are trained. Doesn't matter who you are, there is always a chance you will be injured. Moreoever, the injuries in this case were from Jim punching the attacker in the mouth.

He wasn't able to adequately protect himself.

But he was. He did exactly that. His injuries were caused by him doing it. The result may have been the same if he had applied an aikido technique, e.g. sumi otoshi'ing the guy to the ground and getting covered in his blood/pinning him with sankyo and the guy biting his leg, etc.

Jim went well beyond what's required before defending himself, attempting to escape and suffering several strikes before hitting back. I wouldn't have been anywhere near as nice.

[genin]

I honestly don't think issues of minimum/excessive force matters in this incident. How is a single punch "excessive"? Especially when thrown in an act of self-defense amid an assailant's attack? If anything, the resulting injuries were an uncommon and unfortunate result of what was essentially a run-of-the-mill street fight.

As far as I know, the guy who got attacked is not even a martial artist. So we can't rightfully criticize his combat techniques. This does bring up an interesting topic though, which is protecting yourself while destroying your enemy. I recall the story of the assassin who was killed by a bullet fragment ricochet that entered his eye and brain. Sure, he shot and killed his enemy too, but he died in the same hail of gunfire--from his own hand nonetheless!

The lesson to be learned is that we have to always ensure our own safety first, then look to lash out at our enemy second. Sometimes this is difficult to do, especially in the heat of an unpredictable moment.

[Belt_Up]

I honestly don't think issues of minimum/excessive force matters in this incident.

They matter wherever the law applies.

How is a single punch "excessive"?

No-one said it was.

I recall the story of the assassin who was killed by a bullet fragment ricochet that entered his eye and brain.

Who was that?

but he died in the same hail of gunfire--from his own hand nonetheless!

How does one bullet become a 'hail of gunfire'?

[genin]

They matter wherever the law applies.

No-one said it was.

Who was that?

How does one bullet become a 'hail of gunfire'?

I want to say the assassin's name was David Beron or something to that effect. He was involved with the Mexican drug cartels. There were multiple shooters using assault rifles and shotguns.

[jackie adams]

Legally, that's excessive force. Morally or practically speaking why would you use more than 'necessary' force? Although technically impossible to judge when within a given situation, I can't think why anyone would correctly evaluate the level of force needed and then go "You know what, forget it." and apply more. If there's a situation you can sort out with a slap, there's no need to pull a knife and get stabbing.

No. Getting injured is a by-product of fighting regardless of how well you are trained. Doesn't matter who you are, there is always a chance you will be injured. Moreoever, the injuries in this case were from Jim punching the attacker in the mouth.

But he was. He did exactly that. His injuries were caused by him doing it. The result may have been the same if he had applied an aikido technique, e.g. sumi otoshi'ing the guy to the ground and getting covered in his blood/pinning him with sankyo and the guy biting his leg, etc.

Jim went well beyond what's required before defending himself, attempting to escape and suffering several strikes before hitting back. I wouldn't have been anywhere near as nice.

Geoff Byers, and everyone else Hello. I hope everyone is well this fine day. Geoff Byers thank you for responding to my comments.

Homeless people can be a dangerous threat, indicated clearly by Jim's encounter of being attacked. Homeless people's capacity of fighting skills are limited, they are not to the level of a skilled martial artist or fighter. But their fighting skill are tailored their environment and living conditions. Desperate and mentally ill people are very dangerous because they can be unpredictable, irrational and violent. A very dangerous cocktail.

In many states in the US, Jim could have used deadly force under the stand your ground law. JIm under the law could have used deadly force because he was physically threatened when his bike was kicked by the homeless man. Here in California, that isn't the case. California law says basically if you can't use more force than then what threatens you. In many cases, here, criminal are able to sue their victims for using more than required force. Law abiding citizens who are victimized under life or death situations, who used deadly force to save their lives have been arrested tried for murdering the armed assailant threatening to kill them. It isn't all that uncommon for the innocent victim to be convicted. California has strict gun laws, unlike Florida that allows citizens to carrying a concealed weapon and used against any situation a person feels their life is threatened.

Jim being in So.California, I am not surprised he wasn't arrested, the homeless man went in a coma- Jim still could be arrested and tried for murder. Jim being a trained boxer works against him when punching on a homeless man who just kicked his bike. Jim was using more force than the situation required, the homeless man only kicked the bike.

If Jim, was aware of the homeless man coming at him he could dropped the bike or got on the bike and insure to keep a out of the homeless man's range of contact. It can be argued homeless man are not in good shape. Jim who rode his bike to work is in better shape. Jim could have out run the homeless guy, even when his bike was kick. Even when the homeless guy was taking swings which I can assume blows that didn't not land on Jim. Jim didn't have to excessively punch the homeless guy so hard it sent him to the asphalt, both the punching and hitting the ground caused serious internal injury and unconsciousness. In California, Jim didn't adequately use proper means of protecting himself. He was lucky he wasn't arrested and the D.A. file charges there and then. The D.A. may still, especially if the homeless man dies. The only saving grace I see is the camera footage where Jim was being chased that immediately keep him out of jail.

It isn't always easy to be able to gauge the appropriate amount of force to use when under an attack. If Jim was adequately trained in self-defense he would have better avoided the situation. Jim would have not reacted as he did with so much force due to the adrenaline dump (he probably hand learn to control). Jim if he was well trained in self defense many have handle the adrenaline dump and stress of the situation better. He would have better understood homeless people are dangerous, knowing there is a high risk contacting a deadly disease. Knowing homeless people can be mentally unstable and volatile. They live under dangerous street conditions that are desperate and volatile. Self defense isn't proving what kind of sick fighter you are, it demands awareness and avoidance. It is imperative too, the law of the land is understood. Street self defense situations don't result in someone going home with a trophy. There are consequences for violence.

Jim returned violence with excessive violence. He may have avoided some blows, and defeated his attacker. What he wasn't able to avoid was a possible death sentence of being infected with a deadly disease, and the possibility he will be prosecuted by the law. He may have won the fight, but he lost to the consequences of fighting. He didn't go home a hero or feeling good about himself.

Overal, it is a bad and unfortunate situation.

Thank you everyone for the opportunity to comment on his subject. Have a great day.

*excessively punching or more forceful punch =a stronger or more damaging punch than the initial punch landed. Jim hitting harder and doing and causing more physical damage than the punches received by the homeless guy. I don't think Jim was punched at all, or received physical injury from punches he received. He did damage his hand from the blows he used on the homeless guy.

[jackie adams]

May I add, that there are many cases on the books in California where people who are fighting in self-defense where one person gets hit being knocked to the ground suffering severe injuries or dies from hitting the ground results in the hitter being arrested going to jail. It doesn't matter if the person who was left standing was a victim or not.

We can't turn the world in to a utopian place where violence doesn't exist. We can manage violence better, keeping from exploding. We have to promote violence, we don't need to praise it. We don't have to allow or indulge the world to become a dystopian world where violence rules. Violence isn't any stronger than peace.

Everyone please be able to enjoy a peaceful and rewarding day.

[jackie adams]

We have to promote violence, we don't need to praise it.

Everyone please be able to enjoy a peaceful and rewarding day.

I am having a Monday on a Thursday....sorry! I meant to say, we don't have to promote violence, we don't need to praise it.

Again my apologies.

[Belt_Up]

Jim being a trained boxer

I don't think that was said anywhere. People guessed, but taking up the classic pugilistic stance is something people do even if they haven't been trained.

It can be argued homeless man are not in good shape. Jim who rode his bike to work is in better shape. Jim could have out run the homeless guy, even when his bike was kick.

Three assumptions.

Even when the homeless guy was taking swings which I can assume blows that didn't not land on Jim

Another assumption, when the first post says they did land. Three hits.

*excessively punching or more forceful punch =a stronger or more damaging punch than the initial punch landed.

We have no way of knowing that. Jim took three, and replied with one. The fact that the attacker then keeled over is a tad unlucky, but you can train all you like and still end up accidentally killing someone when defending yourself, it makes no difference. For all we know, the attacker had an impending embolism and the punch set it off. Not Jim's fault, no way for him to tell, it's simply not forseeable for a layman.

The lesson I'm taking away from this is not "Ooooh, be really careful when defending yourself because you might hurt someone." It's "Don't attack people on the street at random because they might just turn around and level you."

If Jim was adequately trained in self-defense he would have better avoided the situation.

'Adequate' training does not imbue one with magical powers. You can be a wonderfully talented martial artist, defending yourself in the most restrained way possible, and still end up causing far more damage than you intended. The vast majority of factors in a fight are not under your control.

May I add, that there are many cases on the books in California where people who are fighting in self-defense where one person gets hit being knocked to the ground suffering severe injuries or dies from hitting the ground results in the hitter being arrested going to jail. It doesn't matter if the person who was left standing was a victim or not.

Please list said cases.

[Michael Hackett]

@ Roger: David Baron was killed during an ambush that he was leading. There was indeed a hail of gunfire with hundreds of rounds expended. He was shot in the eye and died at the scene. I don't think it was ever determined which of the many guns shot him, let alone if it was a bullet fragment from his own gun. He was a contract killer for one of the Mexican drug cartels and may have been killed by his intended victims and may have been a casualty of friendly fire.

@Jackie: Your understanding of self-defense laws, particularly in California, is incorrect. A person has a right to defend himself here, but cannot use more force than necessary. It is entirely situational and determined on a case-by-case basis. There are a number of facts used in the analysis; which party was the aggressor, relative size, strength, condition, what actually was done and in what manner. A single punch, even from a professional boxer would not be considered excessive force in a situation as described originally. If the facts were altered even slightly, that same punch could be considered deadly force and unlawful.

Stereotyping all homeless people into some group is equally inaccurate. Some are young and strong while some are old and feeble. Some are military veterans with significant martial skills, and some have no martial skills at all. Some are rational and sober, while others are mentally ill and addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Overall this was a tragic event for all concerned. Did Jim do anything wrong? Apparently not as he was not arrested or charged. Could he have done something different? Certainly. Should he have done something different? That would be easy for all of us to answer with the benefit of the hindsight we now have - a benefit Jim didn't have at the moment.

[Belt_Up]

You're a ray of light, Mr Hackett.

/lie down and two aspirin o'clock

[genin]

@Michael Hackett: If you are part of a team of assassins and one of your cohort's bullets kills you, then you might as well have died by your own hand. Not literally, obviously. It doesn't matter if the "friendly" bullet that killed you came from your own gun or your buddy's. You'll still be just as dead, and it's not your enemy's fault. The point I was making is that recklessness during an attack can lead to your undoing.

Also, I don't see the importance of dwelling on the legal aspects of this incident. Legalities are subjective. This was in So Cal and by what people are saying he could've/should've been arrested for what he did. But he wasn't. So much for our perceptions of legalities...

[Belt_Up]

Legalities are subjective.

Oh dear.

[lbb]

Oh dear.

I'm guessing Roger meant to say that they're situational...?

[jackie adams]

@ Roger: David Baron was killed during an ambush that he was leading. There was indeed a hail of gunfire with hundreds of rounds expended. He was shot in the eye and died at the scene. I don't think it was ever determined which of the many guns shot him, let alone if it was a bullet fragment from his own gun. He was a contract killer for one of the Mexican drug cartels and may have been killed by his intended victims and may have been a casualty of friendly fire.

@Jackie: Your understanding of self-defense laws, particularly in California, is incorrect. A person has a right to defend himself here, but cannot use more force than necessary. It is entirely situational and determined on a case-by-case basis. There are a number of facts used in the analysis; which party was the aggressor, relative size, strength, condition, what actually was done and in what manner. A single punch, even from a professional boxer would not be considered excessive force in a situation as described originally. If the facts were altered even slightly, that same punch could be considered deadly force and unlawful.

Stereotyping all homeless people into some group is equally inaccurate. Some are young and strong while some are old and feeble. Some are military veterans with significant martial skills, and some have no martial skills at all. Some are rational and sober, while others are mentally ill and addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Overall this was a tragic event for all concerned. Did Jim do anything wrong? Apparently not as he was not arrested or charged. Could he have done something different? Certainly. Should he have done something different? That would be easy for all of us to answer with the benefit of the hindsight we now have - a benefit Jim didn't have at the moment.

Michael Hacket thank you for your well versed comments. I side on a conservative view when it comes to the self defense law. I am not a lawyer, I am an average citizen. I don't want to be less conservative and have that challenged in a courtroom. Better safe than sorry.

Stereotyping is best used as a tool of self-defense. There isn't a consequence if you are wrong and the person being stereotyped doesn't attack you. If don't stereotype properly within the context of identifying a threat, stereotyping a threat as harmless that in fact isn't because it attacks you, then you suffer violent consequences. We then can say stereotyping in context of self defense is being on guard, alert to possible attacks. Being on guard reduces the risk of attacks. It is said, the Founder was always on guard. Whether or not this it was true, being on guard, not letting your guard down was a valued asset, and still is. Stereotyping isn't an accurate synonym that works in the context of respecting the capabilities of a homeless person living on the street who could be mentally unstable. Being on guard and not letting your guard down on the street lowers your risk of attack, especially surprise unprovoked attacks.

Thank you again, and have a good enjoyable rest of the day.

[Rob Watson]

Please list said cases.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20517171/two-oakland-men-sent-prison-killing-man-uptown

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/30/BALQ1OB44G.DTL&tsp=1

There are quite a few more ...

[genin]

I'm guessing Roger meant to say that they're situational...?I meant subjective, as in: open to interpretation. But it's true that it is situational as well.

The legal consequences of any given action are at the sole discretion of the individual enforcing the law. That person is either usually a cop or a district attorney. They are bound by state and local laws, but its ultimately a matter of their own personal opinions and feelings on the matter as far as how they decide to proceed.

In the Trayvon Martin case, the DA "felt bad" and decided to do a 180 and change thier mind about letting a murderer go free a month later. Yet at the time of the murder, they were completely cool with it. While the laws may be very clear and set in stone (though they are often not), it's still a matter of interpreting what actually occured during a particular crime, and how to prosecute and punish the individuals involved.

[Garth]

"In many states in the US, Jim could have used deadly force under the stand your ground law. JIm under the law could have used deadly force because he was physically threatened when his bike was kicked by the homeless man. Here in California, that isn't the case. California law says basically if you can't use more force than then what threatens you. In many cases, here, criminal are able to sue their victims for using more than required force. Law abiding citizens who are victimized under life or death situations, who used deadly force to save their lives have been arrested tried for murdering the armed assailant threatening to kill them. It isn't all that uncommon for the innocent victim to be convicted. California has strict gun laws, unlike Florida that allows citizens to carrying a concealed weapon and used against any situation a person feels their life is threatened.

Jim being in So.California, I am not surprised he wasn't arrested, the homeless man went in a coma- Jim still could be arrested and tried for murder. Jim being a trained boxer works against him when punching on a homeless man who just kicked his bike. Jim was using more force than the situation required, the homeless man only kicked the bike. "

Thats why California maybe even more messed up then here(NYC)
I want to say that common sense prevails with the cops, sometimes , a lot of times not, because they are under pressure from an overzealous commander or prosecutor, or just not that brite , ALL trying to cover their asses.... Cameras everywhere now just seals the deal... if they want to keep their jobs or details.(cops)
Anybody remember Bernard Goetz, a lot of people say he was overzealous and a little crazy... I say he opened his mouth too much and from his talking a case was pieced together against him...irregardless of whether he had been pushed over the edge into never never land.
Violence of action is term used by special operators... it is not a promotion of indescriminate excessive violence. It is an embracing acknowledgement that there is a brief time when the violence(sometimes deemed excessive) is needed to turn the tide back in your favor(outnumbered, caught napping).
What did O'sensei say when he was older? "lo and I am already behind my enemy" (something to that effect), his understanding of conflicts had progressed obviously but I am pretty sure that the O'sensei of the 1935 Asahi news film would have had the attacker or several laying on the floor knocked out.
MVHO
G:)

[Anjisan]

I would also be curious to know what role alcohol, other illicit substances as well as mental illness may have played in the behavior of the homeless man. Such a role would certainly call into question how much control he actually had over his choices.

[Belt_Up]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_20517171/two-oakland-men-sent-prison-killing-man-uptown

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/30/BALQ1OB44G.DTL&tsp=1

There are quite a few more ...

Neither article says anything about them being in self-defense...? Would you like to try again?

The legal consequences of any given action are at the sole discretion of the individual enforcing the law. That person is either usually a cop or a district attorney. They are bound by state and local laws, but its ultimately a matter of their own personal opinions and feelings on the matter as far as how they decide to proceed.

Er, no. A policeman cannot simply decide to not arrest you for murder if he comes across you knelt over a dead body with a knife in your hand, screaming "I've killed you and I loved it!" They have to enforce the law regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

[Rob Watson]

Neither article says anything about them being in self-defense...? Would you like to try again?

Hit and dead on the ground ... the rest is kind of hard to sort out. Self-defense is more a legal strategy as opposed to a statement of fact. Suffice it to say there a plenty of examples of a 'simple' hit resulting on someone ending up dead.

[Belt_Up]

Suffice it to say there a plenty of examples of a 'simple' hit resulting on someone ending up dead.

I never contested that. I made that exact point earlier. What I took issue with was:

May I add, that there are many cases on the books in California where people who are fighting in self-defense where one person gets hit being knocked to the ground suffering severe injuries or dies from hitting the ground results in the hitter being arrested going to jail.

Self-defense is more a legal strategy as opposed to a statement of fact.

I fail to see how two men killing one and then pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter could have anything to do with this discussion. It was claimed that these cases were specifically self-defense.

Here's a hint. You most likely will not be able to find proof for such a claim in news sources. You will have to actually consult (gasp) case law.

[Garth]

Er, no. A policeman cannot simply decide to not arrest you for murder if he comes across you knelt over a dead body with a knife in your hand, screaming "I've killed you and I loved it!" They have to enforce the law regardless of their own personal feelings on the matter.

Words mean something, this is not semantics. Murder the way you described it is not up to the policeman, (his job is arrest while trying not to mess up the alleged criminal's rights)it is the prosecutor who chooses from several different distinctions, among them
Murder in the 1st and 2nd degree
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
and then maybe self defense again, if you don't run into the aforementioned
CYA cops
overzealous DA
politically correct or public opinion driven DA and or mayor.

"stand your ground " laws give cops exactly the leeway about arrest in States that are still "sane"
about personal liberty.
In the Trevon Martin case we have both "stand your ground" and "public opinion" working and it has brought to light transgressions (maybe excessive force and evidence of truths not being told as witnessed on both sides) so the system is working.
Several other cases in possibly states with no stand your ground laws have come to light since then and if you are not in the correct political class or on the right side of public opinion as reported by an allegedly "unbiased " media,or vindicated by a video, you wound up pretty much up the creek or dead.
So if you are home alone at 1am watching your one year old baby and some one starts to kick in your door and you shotgun them right thru the door, err... the cops do have discretion to say self defense
contrary tragically to what has now become popular non common sense belief

[Alberto_Italiano]

Alberto your last line is interesting but I have to point out that 'devastating' would imply a consequence other than a broken or torn arm : non-aikidoka when "kotegaeshid" :confused: do not hit the ground with their heads. (You can all argue that point, you're welcome.)

What would Ueshiba have done?
Stotted him in the throat with the bike. No, really.

Well the problem with a kotegaeshi in a bar is given by the nearby forniture: the guy flies and lands not on the ground but on the corner of a table and that corner may cause an internal rupture of a vital organ, in an instant. Corners (notoriously absent in dojos lol) make unpredictable how a guy would impact.

Or he may end up on the surface of the table arguably on bottles or glass, which may sever arteries, or maybe he first lands on a table, then being still under the impetus of the throw bounces down the table carrying with himself flying spoon forks and knives... he gets up realizing he has a fork into his inner tight, or into his neck (I doubt he may risk a spoon in his butt... yet he may still risk a blade in his ribs or glass into his eyes!).

But the main problem with a kotegaeshi in a bar or in the street is that the guy will break his bones either on concrete or on wooden corners.
If he does not injure his skull, he may still get paralyzed by fracturing his vertebras. Falling on your backbone on concrete is not a nuisance: ever tried an ukemi on concrete? I did, intentionally, and I am not going to try twice :D I was afraid i could have ruptured one of my hips... which could have caused lifelong limping...

See how some falls on the mat are. Guys who hit squarely with their backbone on the floor, others who hit it and bounce -, I had once a guy under my very first kotegaeshi rolling away for several meters bouncing like a ball along the mat in a straight line - never seen something like that ever again, since then; we had the whole dojo holding "its" breath seeing this guy bouncing around indeed like a ball in a basketball game would do, plus with a lot of noise and intercepting other aikidokas too during his apparently endless "run". I was later admonished «don't ever put muscular force in that!».

But in a real fight you will be tempted to put muscular force in it. Now imagine the guy bouncing at rush hour straight off the sidewalk...

If I have not misunderstood it, the unfortunate guy of this thread had not a problem because of a punch, but because he fell on concrete as a consequence of a punch and hit his head on concrete - he too was not supposed to do so.

So now imagine what may happen if a fall on concrete is determined by a guy falling not because of his poor balance when hit by a trivial punch (despite what we see in movies, falling after one punch is a rare occurrence, mostly induced by fear) but because a guy has deliberately thrown him knowing that the consequence would precisely be an accentuated impact on the ground... he may hit his vertebras and/or skull with tripled force... you don't see guys hitting their heads in dojos but that depends also on the fact that if they do, they may report no consequence because there is a mat. However in a street you have street lights, parked cars, bins, sidewalk corners... and even a minor skull hit on something as inelastic as concrete may cause severe concussion - you kotegaeshi thinking it was the right thing to do, you realize only when it's too late you were not aware of your sorroundings because you were focusing (and rightly so) on your most imminent challenge.

I love kotegaeshi, I may be tempted - however, think twice if you can. You may have to live with the consequences in a real situation.

Given the dramatic intelligence of this thread, and given the manifold implications (inclusive of the fact one has to live with the remorse he may have killed somebody, something that arguaby even if done in self-defense may be a memory you would have preferred to live without...), I would still suggest to use armlocks as your first choice against unarmed opponents: easier, safer, clean, and final. And hardly lethal.

[genin]

You're telling me if you did kotegaeshi on some drunk guy in a bar, and there was available space, then he'd land on the ground and be fine? I thought the move itself was designed to snap the wrist and arm in several places if uke resists the breakfall or fails to ukemi properly. Pardon my ignorance on this technique as I am not aikidoka.

[Michael Hackett]

@Roger: As this thread was titled "The Consequences of Fighting" I suggest that the legalities are certainly a part of the equation and discussion. We can discuss the ethical standards of involving ourselves in a fight as some have. We can discuss the efficacy of particular techniques in a fighting situation as some have. We also should consider the legal consequences of participating in a fight whether we are the aggressor or the defender. One can be morally right and technically proficient and still find himself in a criminal or civil court and I can assure you that has significant ramifications. I strongly advise folks to learn the laws of self-defense in their jurisdiction and think that martial arts instructors should teach their students about the "rules of engagement" so to speak.

@Jackie: My point about stereotyping was a little different than your response. Being alert to a stereotype situation is a little different than saying that a homeless person is likely out-of-shape or suggesting that he may not have any skill. That an attacker appears to be a homeless bum, doesn't necessarily make him less dangerous and making that assumption can be fatal. I'm not suggesting that you should run over him with your SUV if confronted, but rather you should assess the actual danger the individual presents.

@Garth: You make a good point about public opinion. Police agents here in California have wide discretion and are not required to make arrests in most circumstances - there are specific exceptions such as legal requirements to arrest anyone who has an open warrant, to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or to receive a prisoner from an arrest by a private person (citizen's arrest in popular language). Similarly, the prosecutor has tremendous discretion in choosing to prosecute or not, or for what charge. If enough "heat" is generated by the public or media, it isn't uncommon to prosecute a person that would otherwise not be charged.

Yeah, we're a little screwed up here in California, but we have far more problems to face than whether we have over-zealous prosecutors. On the bright side, we have good weather and lots and lots of good Aikido.

[Garth]

"Yeah, we're a little screwed up here in California, but we have far more problems to face than whether we have over-zealous prosecutors. On the bright side, we have good weather and lots and lots of good Aikido."

Well , you may have me on that weather thing, ..... and well the dojos do seem to be as populous as bodegas are here.
But you are not alone on the problems front by a long shot:freaky:
Be well
G

[Michael Hackett]

Yeah Garth, but youse guys have those great pretzels down at the Ferry Landing from Atlantic Highlands. Awesome!

[jackie adams]

@Jackie: My point about stereotyping was a little different than your response. Being alert to a stereotype situation is a little different than saying that a homeless person is likely out-of-shape or suggesting that he may not have any skill. That an attacker appears to be a homeless bum, doesn't necessarily make him less dangerous and making that assumption can be fatal. I'm not suggesting that you should run over him with your SUV if confronted, but rather you should assess the actual danger the individual presents.

Good day Michael Hackett, thank you for sharing "a must go to place" for pretzels. I am now definitely going to make the effort to stop by there. Thank you for your thoughtful comment too.

The homeless person who attacked Jim was dangerous, sadly. Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security. Those of us who are practitioners of Aikido taking the Founder's view of non-violence/avoidance of violence, where violence has it's consequences for both the victim and the perpetrator, understand the importance of being aware of violent people.

The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations. I was a part of a group where we lived on the street for a month to understand the conditions of being homeless. During that time of interacting with the homeless like any society you have dangerous individuals. I also met those who needed professional mental health care, most where not dangerous, some made me nervous. It is a myth to think all mentally ill homeless people are not dangerous. It is wrong to think all mentally ill homeless people are dangerous. Also, be deprived of food, sleep and a safe environment; where the threat of victimization is a constant. I will not add a drug habit on top of that. You will be surprised of what you will do to survive when there is no hope, when your life becomes broken.

You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else. They are people too, living under desperate conditions, without hope of change. A very difficult way of life. Jim's attacker was driven to a desperate act that translated to a violent attack. Jim's attacker actions didn't work out well for him, sadly. Jim being on the receiving end of a violent attack didn't fare to well either. No one won. The both came out on the losing end. How sad of a circumstance, nothing good comes from violence.

I hope everyone has a great day and enjoys their training today, or what ever they do. In Peace.

[Garth]

Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security.
The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations
You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else

You did mention addiction so you would not have to mention it?
And also me assuming or generalizing that a homeless person(s) are dangerous can actually cause them to be dangerous? Seriously ?
And what about personal choice?
Living with the homeless,while a noble effort, does not interfere with the fact of statistics.
Homeless people are more prevalent in the cities in this country where there is leniency, tolerance and more handouts, good weather also. It is a fact. I watched them almost disappear from NYC in early nineties under Mayor Giuliani. Turns out they were also committing A LOT of the crime. (See William Bratton and Jack Maple also). Most of them have migrated to towns like San Francisco or
the ones for who it was a choice. That is no small number of the general homeless population.
New York now being one of the largest safe cities in the world was no accident and it is slowly reversing itself because after Mayor Giuliani and his progenitors the will was slowly lost , etched away by liberal resistance or "understanding" "compassion" "pschology".
Giving respect to homeless people is not going to keep them from attacking you if they intend to do so, nor any other member of society.
My point is , to you Mr. Adams and others , is , I do not have to understand why a homeless person felt the need to attack me when they do. I also do not wish to kill or hurt someone, but really it takes two to tango. A noble effort to eradicate one of society's great ills and it has not been accomplished since time has been recorded!!

[jackie adams]

Most people aren't dangerous, but we can't allow ourselves to be lulled into a false of security.
The causes for this homeless man to be dangerous can be a result of generalizations
You have to treat and show the homeless with respect, like everyone else

You did mention addiction so you would not have to mention it?
And also me assuming or generalizing that a homeless person(s) are dangerous can actually cause them to be dangerous? Seriously ?
And what about personal choice?
Living with the homeless,while a noble effort, does not interfere with the fact of statistics.
Homeless people are more prevalent in the cities in this country where there is leniency, tolerance and more handouts, good weather also. It is a fact. I watched them almost disappear from NYC in early nineties under Mayor Giuliani. Turns out they were also committing A LOT of the crime. (See William Bratton and Jack Maple also). Most of them have migrated to towns like San Francisco or
the ones for who it was a choice. That is no small number of the general homeless population.
New York now being one of the largest safe cities in the world was no accident and it is slowly reversing itself because after Mayor Giuliani and his progenitors the will was slowly lost , etched away by liberal resistance or "understanding" "compassion" "pschology".
Giving respect to homeless people is not going to keep them from attacking you if they intend to do so, nor any other member of society.
My point is , to you Mr. Adams and others , is , I do not have to understand why a homeless person felt the need to attack me when they do. I also do not wish to kill or hurt someone, but really it takes two to tango. A noble effort to eradicate one of society's great ills and it has not been accomplished since time has been recorded!!

Hello Gregory Gargiso, and thank you for taking the time to respond to my thoughts. I do agree with what you said. Pardon my confusion and possible misunderstanding on this point. If I mislead anyone to thinking I support or advocate the eradication of the homeless, I apologize. The homeless in my view need help, we as a society are not adequately providing that help. Most people don't realize the vast variation of people who end up homeless living on the street for lots of reasons. It is sad most people only think homeless are those with drug problems, or some how decide that is the life they wish to lead. I don't think this way. In Jim's case, the moral is for me violence has consequences for all involved. Violence has its price,. Violence makes everyone pay, and doesn't care who it is.
I hope all is well this fine day.

[Garth]

Mr. Adams, I am saying exactly saying that I disagree.
The homeless have been the recipients of billions of dollars of help and time, since the beginning of recorded history. Now , you can point to people specifically whose lives have been saved because of that help(i.e homeless people who didnt freeze to death because they were given shelter or food or money) . See "war on poverty" and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. Really? How much more can be done ? BILLIONS maybe TRILLIONS and thats only last fifty years.There are few or none that I can think of who did lift themselves out of that lifestyle to justify the expenditure which has been given them and that by hook or crook is a choice somewhere. I know, I know that we all get to feel good about ourselves and most likely will go to heaven and it is what is supposed to be done in a civilized society, BUT that millisecond of compassion that I am supposed to have for this person, which has been PROVEN to be 9 out of 10 times , either addicted and or crazy and or there by choice, may just be my undoing.
These posts have made me contemplate what would happen to me if I lost everything tomorrow including any kind of social support of family and friends, and that I conclude , would only happen if I DECIDED to cut myself off from everyone 100%, and I dont even have that many friends. I know that I would not remain homeless and cut off from the world for very long unless there were some very serious screws knocked loose in my brain in the process.
As for the violence, it is going to keep happening, even as society decides to pussyfoot around it more and more., even more so for that very reason.
To the criminally insane, compassion usually equals victim. They can smell it on you like a cheap suit.
And I have only seen two ways to convince someone of the error of their ways in attacking another person, Osensei's way which was perfect Aikido technique( which he said by the way included deadly atemi) and someone's size and strength overwhelmed the other person. Physically man on man that is, of course there is mace , stun guns , guns, knives, fire hoses etc. Compassion for attacker's situation or respect is either last on the list or not on it.

[jackie adams]

Mr. Adams, I am saying exactly saying that I disagree.
The homeless have been the recipients of billions of dollars of help and time, since the beginning of recorded history. Now , you can point to people specifically whose lives have been saved because of that help(i.e homeless people who didnt freeze to death because they were given shelter or food or money) . See "war on poverty" and or Lyndon Baines Johnson. Really? How much more can be done ? BILLIONS maybe TRILLIONS and thats only last fifty years.There are few or none that I can think of who did lift themselves out of that lifestyle to justify the expenditure which has been given them and that by hook or crook is a choice somewhere. I know, I know that we all get to feel good about ourselves and most likely will go to heaven and it is what is supposed to be done in a civilized society, BUT that millisecond of compassion that I am supposed to have for this person, which has been PROVEN to be 9 out of 10 times , either addicted and or crazy and or there by choice, may just be my undoing.
These posts have made me contemplate what would happen to me if I lost everything tomorrow including any kind of social support of family and friends, and that I conclude , would only happen if I DECIDED to cut myself off from everyone 100%, and I dont even have that many friends. I know that I would not remain homeless and cut off from the world for very long unless there were some very serious screws knocked loose in my brain in the process.
As for the violence, it is going to keep happening, even as society decides to pussyfoot around it more and more., even more so for that very reason.
To the criminally insane, compassion usually equals victim. They can smell it on you like a cheap suit.
And I have only seen two ways to convince someone of the error of their ways in attacking another person, Osensei's way which was perfect Aikido technique( which he said by the way included deadly atemi) and someone's size and strength overwhelmed the other person. Physically man on man that is, of course there is mace , stun guns , guns, knives, fire hoses etc. Compassion for attacker's situation or respect is either last on the list or not on it.

Gregory Gargiso, hello again, I hope your day was good and evening better. We agree but it is out methods for lack of a better word differ. Not in a conflicting way, just different paths up the same mountain. There are times when I am misunderstood on my perspectives by some people which happens. In brief, it may seem to some that I stereotype all homeless as evil, crazy, demented drug addicts, demeaning them as social refuse. But, I don't. I respect them, like one respects a weapon or a table saw. Mishandled or taken for granted it can hurt you. Giving a wide berth, and staying on guard in the presence of homeless people, as anyone on the street is my self defense and personal safety program is a good rule of thumb. I am self-defense proactive, and avoid being lulled into the idea homeless people are harmless not capable of violence. Jim's situation is a prime example.

Here is the situation with violence. It exists. It will not go away. It is constantly resisting peace for dominance. The only thing that can contain violence is peace. Peace and violence can't occupy the same space and time. It is either one or the other, we live in a state of peace or a state of violence. The Founder wanted to live in a state of peace and not violence, believing there are consequences for all those who are involved in violence where no one wins. People who are in war torn countries know this all too well. People who are victimized know this. People who live on the street know this. People who are in competitive contact sports know this too. It isn't a secret. I practice Aikido for this reason to keep more peace in my life than violence. Aikido has made me aware of who and what is around me. The technique I value the most is ma-ai.

Everyone I apologize for my tangent. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts here.

[Garth]

The only thing that can contain violence is peace

And sometimes the peace can only be won thru violence. you think that not enough has been spent on the refuse of society and I think that is a flat out non truth.The figure is in this country is literally in the trillions of dollars. (War on poverty) . Maybe we should have called it the peace on poverty ...I dunno
Agree to strongly disagree.

[jackie adams]

The only thing that can contain violence is peace

And sometimes the peace can only be won thru violence. you think that not enough has been spent on the refuse of society and I think that is a flat out non truth.The figure is in this country is literally in the trillions of dollars. (War on poverty) . Maybe we should have called it the peace on poverty ...I dunno
Agree to strongly disagree.

Hello Gregory Gargiso, it was kind of you to respond. Thank you.

I think there are greater issues where the government wastes and abuses our tax dollars, then on making our cities a better place to live. Agreed there always be homeless people, the goal then would reduce the number of people living on the streets. New York like you said changed, and it is changing back. That is like peace and violence. It takes allot of effort to keep violence in check, and you can't keep it in check for ever. This where good management of violence comes in. We can't eradicate violence but we can manage it and allow peace to dominate.

Have a great day and good training

[Garth]

So then the question is, do we spend money educating people about the consequences of their choices in life or do we spend it giving them handout after handout ad infinitum after they refuse to acknowledge those consequences. To say that it is the fault of the people who have made all the right choices in life or were born into better circumstance is flat wrong.
Jim had absolutely nothing to do with getting attacked , if not him, it would be another unsuspecting citizen.Having said that, how he handled himself, well, we all would have liked to see a better outcome. That is why we train, another right minded choice.
Social safety nets are or should be for the truly unfortunate in life, ie. born that way, accidents.
Not a continual string of bad choices that defy survival logic. It was thru confrontation of the problem that it was eradicated in NY, no more confrontation, they come back.
I am sorry that it seems to be directed at you, but there are plenty of other utopian minded people on here who voiced such opinions.
I am sure that people will say that the founder was like minded and eschewed competition and confrontation, I will say that he competed every moment of his life, making good choices, positioning himself at the top at which point you can say what ever you want.
Good day

[jackie adams]

Gregory Gargiso, Hello. I see you are very passionate and your spirit is strong on this topic. My admiration.

So then the question is, do we spend money educating people about the consequences of their choices in life or do we spend it giving them handout after handout ad infinitum after they refuse to acknowledge those consequences. To say that it is the fault of the people who have made all the right choices in life or were born into better circumstance is flat wrong.



We do what you said New York did.

Jim had probably more control over the attack than he realized. The golden rule in any conflict is not to be hit, avoid at all costs. You move out of the way of the attack by being aware. Granted it is impossible to have superhuman powers and never be hit. Again, this is an issue of conflict management seen in the eyes of CA law. The law will ask did Jim do everything in his power to avoid the conflict. CA. is very conservative with issues of self-defense, there is no stand your ground law. It is different in CA. I am surprise Jim wasn't arrested. I will not be surprised if Jim is later prosecuted. That is how Cali rolls.

I am sure that people will say that the founder was like minded and eschewed competition and confrontation, I will say that he competed every moment of his life, making good choices, positioning himself at the top at which point you can say what ever you want.
Good day

The Founder said didn't approve of competition, that is why we don't compete. As I understand it there was a relationship between competition and developing or having a violent nature. I can't disagree his observations or views are not without flaw. Yes, he was a leader and established his position as the leader of his art. He didn't do it with violence.

Any way enjoy your day, and thank you.

[Michael Hackett]

Jackie, PLEASE stop informing forum members about California law until you develop a body of knowledge. You are simply wrong. Granted, we don't have a specific law entitled "stand your ground" here, our laws of self-defense do not require a retreat, nor do they require that one do everything possible to avoid the conflict. I argue with you from a position of experience - I've investigated and enforced those laws for over three decades and continue to lecture at the college level on use of force.

On another note, "Cali" is in Colombia. We native Californians usually refer to our state as "California".

[Garth]

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/123725/cops_kill_homeless_man_for
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20087469-504083.html

This is a perfect example. This is a situation of people who are FORCED to deal with conflict.
How well prepared they were prepared to deal with it is the crux of the matter.
Man was mentally ill schizophrenic, who father admits was not taking his meds and CHOSE to be homeless.
The first two videos and stories are CONJECTURE of people who were not very close to the matter.
The third video which was shown only on Fox news(only place i could find it) doesnt not come up when you google "cops kill homeless man"., clearly shows a confused man probably unable to obey commands, clearly resisting arrest.
There is a lot of things wrong with the video, but a couple of cops+ a taser could not deal with the person in a gentler manner., it is like I said a lot of things but not murder. Let anyone come forward, I would have liked to know a better way of dealing with the situation short of trying to arrest the guy. It is unfortunate and tragic and these cops HAD to deal with it, there is/no choice or awareness to comeback later and avoid the conflict or prior knowledge as to what type of person they were about to come in contact with.

And also I am under the assumption that the founder didnt want competition in Aikido because he did not want it become a "sport" like Judo had just done, not because he eschewed violence.
That is the "hippified" version of the story. Besides I am sure Takeda who was a lot of the genisis of Ueshiba's Aikido was eschewing violence when he got teeth knocked out trying to learn spear fighting or when Tohei broke some guy's leg(s)
Oh yeah

[Michael Hackett]

Garth, this event has gotten a great deal of local press lately. Two of the cops are currently in trial, one charged with murder and the other with assault under the color of authority. Yes, cops have to face violent people frequently and some mentally ill and homeless folks. Physical control holds and takedowns, chemical agents, impact weapons and electrical control devices usually are enough. This case appears to be something beyond proper police practice. The Orange County, CA District Attorney has a reputation of giving the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement officers and he has chosen to prosecute them. On the surface, it looks like a common and everyday event went too far and became criminal conduct. We'll see what a jury thinks in the next few days or so.

[chubbycubbysmash]

Wow, just yesterday our dojo-cho wrote a blog post on self-defense. I think it's worth a read.

It's on teaching the legalities of self-defense to your students as well as the physical training aspect of it. It cites the actual laws (at least in the state of NY).

http://www.liaikikai.com/weblog/

I'm curious about the other social implications of it though, because stereotyping works both ways, right? I mean if a woman defended herself and accidentally killed a guy, do you think the jury would go easier on her than if she was a man in the exact same situation?

[Rob Watson]

I never contested that. I made that exact point earlier. What I took issue with was:

I fail to see how two men killing one and then pleading no contest to voluntary manslaughter could have anything to do with this discussion. It was claimed that these cases were specifically self-defense.

Here's a hint. You most likely will not be able to find proof for such a claim in news sources. You will have to actually consult (gasp) case law.

http://www.elliottnkanter.com/2012/04/12/what-constitutes-self-defense-in-california/

Won't find 'case law' as that means something not related to the topic. Actual trials will be of charges like murder, manslaughter, assault and battery, etc and being found not guilty. No one is found 'not guilty buy reason of self defense' as there is no such outcome. One may prove self defense as a legal strategy to answer charges but unless one reads the trial transcripts that item is generally not mentioned in case summaries- generally only charges and verdicts are found. Kind of strange if one is presumed innocent until proven guilty as one does have to prove self defense - essentially by admitting guilt to the offense but 'getting off on a technicality' by proving the act as self defense.

Not exactly the same sense the term is used in MA for self defense adverts. I never heard a discussion of the legalities of self defense in any dojo I ever trained.

Let us not forget that the district attorney upon review of the facts (of the case) presented may elect to not file charges in the first place so there is no trial and no 'case law' and yet one may well have 'gotten off' by means of self defense. Arrests happen for all kinds of reasons and never end up in court. Kind of hard to present supporting documents for these instances.

[Michael Hackett]

Josephine, the short answer is yes. But as I said earlier, it is situational. To illustrate, let's use kotogaeshi in a restaurant as an example with the aggressor approaching the defender by reaching for he or she while saying, "I'm gonna kick your ass!" The defender responds by throwing the aggressor with kotogaeshi who suffers a broken arm and concussion.

Situation 1: Defender a female who is 5 foot tall/90 pounds being confronted by a young male, 6-5 and 240 pounds. This would very likely be viewed by the police investigating and the prosecution as a legal case of self-defense.

Situation 2: Just reverse the gender; huge female aggressor and smaller male defender. Quite likely the same result.

Situation 3: Gender irrelevant, but the aggressor reaches out and applies kotogaeshi on the defender with the same result. This event would probably result in an on-site arrest and a prosecution for a criminal assault.

The decision to arrest and prosecute an individual depends on many factors, even gender to some extent. The major factors though include determining what role each played in the event (aggressor v. defender), size, strength, age, sobriety, and even location to some degree. Suppose our location changes from a restaurant to the lobby of the local police precinct and the defender is surrounded by uniformed cops who can and will immediately step in to prevent the aggressor from harming the defender.

There simply is no "One Size Fits All" answer to this analysis. If the initial investigating officer takes the time to actually weigh the various factors no arrest may take place in cases of self-defense. Unfortunately some officers will take the view of "arrest them all and let the DA sort it out later." That is rare, but it does happen.

Your instructor should be congratulated for providing the students with legal self-defense information. Since many people train specifically for that purpose, the information is particularly valuable. Knowing the law if far better than relying on television shows and the media.

[Michael Hackett]

The term case law does not apply to every case tried in court. Usually case law citations are based on appellate decisions argued before a higher court than the trial court. Don't confuse case law with transcripts of trials and the rulings of trial judges. Generally case law makes a ruling involving a legal principle or concept binding on the lower courts of that jurisdiction. Take the Miranda Decision as an example. That was a decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court and binding on all courts in the nation.

Robert's last paragraph is most important. In matters of self-defense, the investigating officer may determine that a self-defense situation existed and choose not to make an arrest or forward his investigation to the prosecutor for review. Similarly, if the prosecutor gets the case, he may determine that self-defense clearly existed and elect not to file a criminal complaint with the courts. He might also determine that the evidence isn't sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It actually is fairly rare to see self-defense raised at trial, and those cases usually involve homicides.

[chubbycubbysmash]

Josephine, the short answer is yes. But as I said earlier, it is situational. To illustrate, let's use kotogaeshi in a restaurant as an example with the aggressor approaching the defender by reaching for he or she while saying, "I'm gonna kick your ass!" The defender responds by throwing the aggressor with kotogaeshi who suffers a broken arm and concussion.

Situation 1: Defender a female who is 5 foot tall/90 pounds being confronted by a young male, 6-5 and 240 pounds. This would very likely be viewed by the police investigating and the prosecution as a legal case of self-defense.

Situation 2: Just reverse the gender; huge female aggressor and smaller male defender. Quite likely the same result.

Situation 3: Gender irrelevant, but the aggressor reaches out and applies kotogaeshi on the defender with the same result. This event would probably result in an on-site arrest and a prosecution for a criminal assault.

The decision to arrest and prosecute an individual depends on many factors, even gender to some extent. The major factors though include determining what role each played in the event (aggressor v. defender), size, strength, age, sobriety, and even location to some degree. Suppose our location changes from a restaurant to the lobby of the local police precinct and the defender is surrounded by uniformed cops who can and will immediately step in to prevent the aggressor from harming the defender.

There simply is no "One Size Fits All" answer to this analysis. If the initial investigating officer takes the time to actually weigh the various factors no arrest may take place in cases of self-defense. Unfortunately some officers will take the view of "arrest them all and let the DA sort it out later." That is rare, but it does happen.

Your instructor should be congratulated for providing the students with legal self-defense information. Since many people train specifically for that purpose, the information is particularly valuable. Knowing the law if far better than relying on television shows and the media.

Thank you so much for the information! I thought the gender issue was an interesting one... since I thought if the defender's size and weight matters, then wouldn't their gender as well?

Although I guess that would seem kind of unfair to guys--I mean, say the girl has the same capacity to hurt someone (like the kotegaeshi example) as a guy does, but BECAUSE she is a woman, she'd be "let off" more easily, since our gender has the stereotype of being weak. Maybe that's why women rarely get the death sentence as often as men, even though some can be just as, occasionally even more so, depraved.

I like learning about this law and self defense stuff... but it kind of makes me fearful to do ANYTHING to anyone even if they were coming at me with the intent to hurt me.

I think I posed these two scenarios to someone else before:
Hypothetically, if a woman is about to be raped, the rapist tells her if she doesn't fight back, he'll let her live and never bother her again (and supposing this is caught on tape so there's evidence), and she still fights back and kills him, would she be held accountable then? He gave her the option of living, and one of the two ways to survive (a. kill him, and b. not fight back) would have been not to fight back (but of course, suffering the horrible fate of having to go through that).

And on the gender issue, hypothetically, if you were protecting a person who was about to be attacked by an aggressor by doing something that caused the aggressor harm, would there be any difference when it comes to prosecuting you if the person you were trying to protect was a man or woman? (because the man has more of a capacity to defend himself, you should have left the situation alone.)

These bugged me because then, could my hesitation because I'm not sure if I'd be prosecuted or not cause me to be "too late" in helping when I could have done so? I've had the fair share of creeps and psychos... I used to know I would be defending myself if it came to it, no questions asked, but then I wasn't so sure after reading some law issues on this.

[Garth]

I like learning about this law and self defense stuff... but it kind of makes me fearful to do ANYTHING to anyone even if they were coming at me with the intent to hurt me

These bugged me because then, could my hesitation because I'm not sure if I'd be prosecuted or not cause me to be "too late" in helping when I could have done so? I've had the fair share of creeps and psychos... I used to know I would be defending myself if it came to it, no questions asked, but then I wasn't so sure after reading some law issues on this

Josephine,
Exactly!! Do not let this cloud your judgement. This is why we train or should I say "re train"
"rewire" our response and dont just give a instinctual "reaction.
The cops have a saying amongst themselves, "I rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".
Now, upon closer examination this could get you into much trouble, putting your head down and bulling your way thru a situation, (women dont usually have this problem BTW) , or tunnel vision. Hopefully our "response" is balanced within our "education" or training. This is why newbies are placed with senior members because there experience is most likely broader, dojo and real world and then there is training.
High stress situations , gunfights, knife, fist is has been shown you will fall to your most basic training.
No training, fight or flight reaction, the more training the more educated the response as your basic vocabulary becomes broader.
Having a history as an aggressor has a way of following you around also, no matter your size gender.
This is why people have criminal records or not, which will also come into play. Very rarely are two people minding there own business bounced into court. There is usually a history .... somewhere, domestically (divorced , seperated, harrassment). 80% I believe is the statistic of victims of violent crime know their attacker in some capacity. Could be as harmless I knew him from church gatherings or full blown stalking or crimes of passion. Awareness plays a big role.
Stay safe.
G

[Michael Hackett]

Josephine, you ask tough questions!

In your first scenario, yes, the rape victim could defend herself. First, there is no guarantee that the rapist won't severely injure or kill her beyond and after the rape itself. Secondly, the very act of rape is an attack likely to create great bodily harm, or the fear of the same.

In your second scenario, yes is probably the correct answer. In most jurisdictions a person can act to protect another from imminent death or bodily harm. The law is silent regarding gender. The major issue would be the amount of force used and whether it was reasonable.

That begs the question of what is reasonable. The term means the average person in the same situation would view the force used as "reasonable". There is no objective scale to rely on. Police agents have a different standard that speaks to whether a reasonable peace officer in the same circumstances would view the force as reasonable and addresses the underlying activity that caused the use of force; whether the individual is continuing to resist or attempt to escape, the danger presented by the individual's conduct to the officer and public, and speaks also to a dynamic and evolving situation.

No one can give you a menu of options you can rely on. Talk to your instructor again, since he or she is interested in keeping his or her students from legal harm. You can pose hypothetical situations until the cows come home, and each will require a thoughtful analysis. In general you can defend yourself if you rationally believe that you are in danger of being attacked and suffering harm. Simply being scared isn't enough - you have to have a real and rational belief and you have to be able to articulate why you held that belief at that moment.

My ramblings here don't constitute legal advice and may even be inaccurate in your jurisdiction or situation. In our local schools here, a student has NO right of self-defense on campus by the policies of the school board. He could be legally right in defending himself, but still be expelled for engaging in a fight. So, as someone here once said so eloquently, YMMV.

[Garth]

In general you can defend yourself if you rationally believe that you are in danger of being attacked and suffering harm. Simply being scared isn't enough - you have to have a real and rational belief and you have to be able to articulate why you held that belief at that moment.

My ramblings here don't constitute legal advice and may even be inaccurate in your jurisdiction or situation. In our local schools here, a student has NO right of self-defense on campus by the policies of the school board. He could be legally right in defending himself, but still be expelled for engaging in a fight. So, as someone here once said so eloquently, YMMV.

Mike,
I mostly agree with this advice. But I still like my point. I cannot invest all the time necessary to learn the penal code, especially when Michael Bloomberg decides he does not like something anymore.
I know , I do so at my own peril, but again I will not place my personal security in a school board that decides some cockamamie law is necessary every time somebody burps or a legislature that will not be there when I am getting my clock cleaned. Information is king, but keeping your nose clean also goes a long way. All these laws are designed for victims and that is not a place I want to be forced to reside at/in.
But to Josephine's point , I do not want to become a victim because I hesitated to act. Doesnt mean it cant happen, but I am eliminating room for error.
Sh$t happens in the meanwhile, and not lucky whether by design or choice I do not need hesitation or indecision on my side also....
G:hypno:

[Michael Hackett]

Garth, my advice is not different than yours. I was answering legal questions that are highly complex. As for advice, mine is try and avoid getting into situations where you might have to defend yourself whenever possible. If that doesn't work, defend yourself or others, and then STOP when the danger is neutralized or flees. In other words, don't take that extra hit. Don't be the aggressor, don't be a bully, don't provoke an encounter. There may be some unpleasantness and perhaps even some legal problems, but if you are honestly defending yourself you should be alright.

[Garth]

Agree
Especially with your signature, no indecision in that line.
Clemenza did not concern himself with such things.
G

[Rob Watson]

Actually, when it comes to sorting things out in court it matters little that one believes they were acting reasonably since the salient point is convincing the judge/jury that one was acting reasonably.

[Michael Hackett]

Robert, you are correct. The final decision on reasonable conduct will certainly be made by a jury, if it gets that far. Reasonable force is somewhat like Goldilocks' three bowls of porridge - too little and you end up in the back of an ambulance. Too much and you ride in the backseat of a patrol car. Discounting all the silly scenarios we can construct, a good bottom line is to stop taking action when the fight is over or the aggressor is unable or unwilling to continue. That extra kick or punch will certainly cost you.

[Marc Abrams]

Robert, you are correct. The final decision on reasonable conduct will certainly be made by a jury, if it gets that far. Reasonable force is somewhat like Goldilocks' three bowls of porridge - too little and you end up in the back of an ambulance. Too much and you ride in the backseat of a patrol car. Discounting all the silly scenarios we can construct, a good bottom line is to stop taking action when the fight is over or the aggressor is unable or unwilling to continue. That extra kick or punch will certainly cost you.

My response to the "jury factor" is that it is better to be tried by a jury of twelve than be carried out in a wooden box by six. Our obligation begins and ends with doing with whatever is necessary to insure that you come home alive if you are subject to an unprovoked attack. Defending one's self has nothing to do with testing our skills, machismo, releasing our fear, anger, etc.... If a person believes that they have the luxury of engaging in that level of decision making, then they are not likely to do well in a real encounter. I agree strongly with what Michael said. You do what is necessary to be safe. No more, no less. Recognize that the greater your practiced abilities are, the better nuanced your choices can become. The greater the lethality of your tools at your disposal, the more likely that your responses will be have more severe consequences to them.

Entering into a fight is to put your life at risk.

Marc Abrams

[genin]

My response to the "jury factor" is that it is better to be tried by a jury of twelve than be carried out in a wooden box by six. Our obligation begins and ends with doing with whatever is necessary to insure that you come home alive if you are subject to an unprovoked attack. Defending one's self has nothing to do with testing our skills, machismo, releasing our fear, anger, etc.... If a person believes that they have the luxury of engaging in that level of decision making, then they are not likely to do well in a real encounter. I agree strongly with what Michael said. You do what is necessary to be safe. No more, no less. Recognize that the greater your practiced abilities are, the better nuanced your choices can become. The greater the lethality of your tools at your disposal, the more likely that your responses will be have more severe consequences to them.
Marc Abrams
I would argue that avoiding negative legal consequences is almost as important as protecting your physical well being. Taking one butt-kicking from one guy on one day beats fighting off prison gangs on a daily basis for years on end. Stricly looking at combat from a black and white perspective leaves out the many shades of gray. And most prisons are painted with shades of gray if you know what I mean.