PDA

View Full Version : SD Question - Pizza Parlor Attack


Please visit our sponsor:
 

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


L. Camejo
03-01-2005, 01:52 PM
[Editor's note: the following page links to a video containing some graphic violence and strong language. Please be warned.]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pizzaparlorbrawl.html

The above is a link to a recent unarmed assault that took place at a Pizza parlor in Akron Ohio. The accompanying video has brought up some interesting self defence tactics, ideas and concepts from another mailing list I am involved in. So I decided to post things here to get another view.

For those of you who train for reasons including self defence, what is your take on the video? What did the victim do wrong, what would you have done differently to end up not being plastered? How would your training in anything have helped you here?

Enjoy. :hypno:
LC:ai::ki:

akiy
03-01-2005, 02:03 PM
Hi Larry,

I just added a small warning regarding the contents of the video...

-- Jun

L. Camejo
03-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Ok Jun, sorry if I offended anyone.

Will remember the G-rating in future.

Thanks.
LC:ai::ki:

senshincenter
03-01-2005, 02:45 PM
In my opinion, combat is only partially an architectural matter. Often this point is so relevant that if all the other elements are in place, or more in place for you than for your adversary, you can actually gain victory though your tactical architecture may be totally absent or lacking in sophistication. The other matters of combat range from the purely physical (e.g. a strong/tough physique), to the psychological (e.g. the capacity to accept the reality of violence), to that that is in between (e.g. the capacity to access one’s cultivated skills).

The video seems to leave the matter of tactical architecture moot – since the victim pretty much made no attempt at arming himself either offensively or defensively. This brings up then the other, perhaps always more significant, elements. One can, and perhaps should, talk about the fact that the victim had himself in a place where apathetic people abound (which speaks to the relevance of picking one’s battlefields and/or relating one’s state of preparedness to one’s environment). However, I think the main catalyst for what was allowed to occur was that the victim failed at two things: a) He denied his own instincts and thus denied the reality he was about to face (i.e. human on human violence); and b) He stuck to cultural convention when human on human violence is a subversion of all culture. Allow me to explain.

In the first case, at some level, the victim understood that the large male that entered the room last was set for aggression – just as any skilled observer could also easily note. His body language, his lack of verbal language, his late arrival plus his lack of attempt or will to be filled in on what was occurring, etc., all spoke to the fact that this man was set for violence. We can see recognition of all of this on the part of the victim when he stopped confronting the woman that had just struck him because the man in question had closed distance toward him (the victim). This is a very common mistake in self-defense situations: denial of one’s own premonitions that violence is about to occur. As a viewer, we can note the victim’s denial of the situation he was now facing when he looks down again at his phone – in the psychological attempt to return to a previous stage in the scenario that just occurred (when he was not so confronting the threat of actual violence). Unfortunately for him, this cue also worked to tell the assaulter that he had his opening, that he was dealing with someone that in all likelihood did not want to fight and thus would not fight back (which is a concern that all predators – animal and human – have and look to solve in one way or another). Tactically, looking down at that moment, also made the assaulter’s strike the only strike that cannot be countered: The strike that cannot be seen.

You can see the assaulter still being concerned with the predatorial consideration of risking self-harm in the fact that his first strike is more of a “feeling out” of the victim – like how a shark tests prey reactions with initial bites. For this reason, the victim actually had the chance to reconsider his situation – to come to possess an understanding that was more accurate in its interpretations. Realizing now that he can no longer delude himself, that he is indeed in the midst of violence, the victim attempts to flee – which is not a bad option concerning the size of the assaulter, the number of assaulters (here there were at least two), the fact that he (the victim) is already having to play tactical catch-up, and how non-conducive the environment (small, no allies, etc.) is toward launching a successful counter attack. However, when he flees, he restricts himself to the tenets of culture (i.e. men don’t hit women) and thus incapacitates himself to move the woman out of the way when she is blocking the door and preventing him from escaping.

In my opinion, outside of the overall lifestyle choices that are certainly relevant, it is these two points at which had the victim acted to the contrary his chances of not being assaulted (or assaulted to such a degree) would have greatly increased. Had he trusted and accepted his first premonition that violence was indeed upon him, and thus not dropped his head (giving the predator the “ok” and the opening to attack), etc., and/or had he freed himself from cultural convention (which is what one must always do in all matters of assault), and thus pushed that woman out of the way so that he could escape, the end result would have probably been much different.

My perspective,
dmv

Ron Tisdale
03-01-2005, 04:28 PM
One thing that I noticed is the difference between the employee's reaction and that of the victim. Notice how the employee starts to go after Sims, then quickly changes his mind and gets back behind the counter the instant he sees the boyfriend. Also note that both the 'boyfriend' and Sims quickly change their focus once the employee is behind the counter...either they deemed it too hard or too dangerous to go back there. Very predatory in nature.

The next thing I notice is that the victim does some pretty typical chest bumping with Sims even though her 'boyfriend' is standing right behind her. I have to wonder why he would allow the dialogue to continue once that HUGE man walked in. I think I'd have been pretty busy doing anything to diffuse the situation at that point, even appologizing. Not because I meant it, but just to save my butt.

I have no idea what would work well once it goes to violence in that situation. The attacker would easily have 100 pounds on me...there's limited space to move, no one is helping, and the boyfriend clearly is willing to be the bully he is. Taking someone that large at that range down is probably harder than some grapplers will admit. And not a good idea with a large woman who is obviously willing to get physical right there. The best bet is to de-escalate while not leaving major openings, hands up (not down and out to the side) and open, side step to the door without turning your back, let the guy know you think its his world, and you are leaving.

It might sound cowardly, but frankly, without a weapon, I don't see the point of trying to 'fight' with someone like that. At that size differential, you may very well be looking at a fight for your life...and you'd better treat it as such. The first thing is get off that phone...if he had done that right away he would have seen the boyfriend come in and could have slipped out while he was focused on the employee.

In terms of technique, the only thing I can really say is that if your aren't looking down when the punch is coming, move with it toward the door and extend the guys balance as much as possible...in dojo settings I find it much safer to extend someone that size beyond their balance point. Then a quick step back in on the outside and hiji-shime the punching arm for a hyperextended elbow before running like hell...

Ron

Mike Collins
03-01-2005, 04:55 PM
If you are gonna act like a bad ass at all, you MUST be willing to throw the first, second, third, and as many succeeding blows as necessary to walk away safe. NEVER bump bellies with anyone unless you own them. This is exactly what the perpetrator did. He was willing to stand straight and let the smaller guy act up so he could pick his spot, wait for a blink of unawareness so he could nail him. It was never, in his mind, an option to NOT hit tis guy, it was a matter of how and when and where, but never if.

What this man could have done to prevent it, I don't know. I don't know what got the woman worked up in the first place. But once he'd gotten himself into this situation, his only option was to beat the big guy to the punch(es, as many as possible) and pray that someone from the pizza parlor kept the woman from copping a sunday from behind. At that point, he's set himself to go to jail.

In 2005, fighting is bad juju. Self defense is about timing and awareness. And respect. It starts with respect, and it ends with respect. Treat others with respect, and usually, this kind of thing doesn't happen. But if you're certain to be a victim, learn to fall down right away, act badly hurt, and protect your head; or learn to hit first, hit often, and hit as dirty and low as you need.

cmrs2k
03-01-2005, 05:14 PM
I get this type of question (in many varying forms) all of the time from potential new students where I train. My answer always has to be this. I am not fast. I could never get into a boxing match with any decent opponent and win. If I had to go toe to toe throwing punches with that guy, I would not like the outcome. Therefore, I would have to say that as soon as the aggressor broke ma-ai (safe distance, don't know if I spelled it right), action must begin. That is, as soon as the attacker moved in to get into the guys face, he should have been moving. I think a two handed shomen ate would have been a good start (and possibly the end as well), and I favor that because it can lead into a load of techniques with minimal transitions. My sensei has always told me that my technique starts the instant that an agressor breaks ma-ai. I know that there is a question of who will win on the legal side of things, but as far as self defense is concerned, this is where I think that it would sit.

Steven
03-01-2005, 05:42 PM
I noted that just before the big guy threw the first punch, his shoulder moved back which is a good sign of the incoming punch. Had the other guy not taken his eye off him, and with a bit of training and luck, he may have been able to defend himself. His lack of awareness and flat out stupidity by provoking the incident by 1) running his mouth to begin with and 2) acting all tough when the big dude wasn't around is what, IMO, got him the butt whippin'.

Of course this is pure arm chair quarter backing and speculation. Heck, I suppose he could have offered to buy their pizza and apology to de-escalate the matter. One can only guess. Though I believe had he just not said anything, this would not have happened. At times, it's not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.

Adam Alexander
03-01-2005, 06:01 PM
The news did an interview with the "victim". I think he got what he was asking for. If the owner/manager doesn't handle someone cutting the line, apparently your money isn't as valuable as the person who has no respect for the line. He should of kept his mouth shut and went elsewhere--that's unless he could of backed up his smack-talking.

However, as far as the topic of self-defence is concerned, he should of ducked. Of course, I'm just running my mouth, but there's no reason that someone with a little heart and a little training couldn't of come out of that on top. That guy was so slow and was totally ready to be taken off balance when he threw those punches.

senshincenter
03-01-2005, 06:17 PM
Jean,

If you know some background on the story, perhaps you could share some of the most relevant stuff with those of us that only know the scenario from what we saw in the video. I'm curious to see if knowing anything more would have me change my original stance.

Thanks in advance,
dmv

Adam Alexander
03-01-2005, 06:26 PM
He said (either on CNN or the local news here), that when she walked to the front of the line, he said to his girlfriend (on the cell phone),"well know it's going to be even longer..." in a voice loud enough for her to hear.

In the interview, he had the same arrogant body language he did in the pizza video...atleast before he got it punched out of him. I think you express it in your post as instinctual recognition. I believe that's how I see it in him. You just know the type.

To me, he was just a want-to-be-tough-guy who got called out.

永久に学生
03-01-2005, 06:38 PM
What struck me besides the complete arrogance of the cell phone guy was that nobody witnessing this occurrence stepped back or seemed all that concerned about what was going on. They were interested in watching but notice nobody lost position in line. Didn't this seem strange. I would have made sure I got out of the way, who knew that this wasn't going to turn into something else. I have tried to be more aware of situations that are best to avoid. This was definitely one of them.

Mike Collins
03-01-2005, 06:43 PM
Am I the only one offended and outraged by what a bunch of wussies (the cleaned up version of what I was really wanting to say) are standing around trying not to acknowledge what's happening?

This culture is sick. People are so damned afraid of lawyers, and people with guns, that we are willing to let a crime of stupidity, ugliness and really lousy punching skills take place while at least 5-6 people just stand there and smile like idiots. 1 big goof gets to act like a damned T-Rex because everyone is afraid he might turn on them. Hardly an apex predator, but he has the 'tude, so he gets away with it (till he goes to the pen). There is absolutely no reason he should have been able to keep hitting the (admittedly stupid) victim after the first shot. Fear wins another round.

Sick world. Too many lawyers, not enough guns. And men afraid to intervene because of a sick legal system.

Vincent Paglia
03-01-2005, 07:34 PM
I think the guy was unprepared for a real assault, as Senshincenter said. It is a common thing in American culture to be a billy bad ass but not actually engage in violence. A casual trip to any college bar or frat party will give you plenty of evidence to support this proposition. I think it stems from our reliance on image rather than reality. As a total side note, my friend just got back from Brazil and he said that the hardest gangsters in the hardest slums down there will smile and say hey to strangers like him. Dudes who will cut your throat in 2 seconds if you mess up their money but who are friendly and easy going otherwise. In this culture, we have the opposite--people who are totally unprepared for any type of violence but want to give off the proper masculine image.

To the specifics of the assault. I do not have extensive experience in any martial art, so I'm mostly trying to learn from others on this thread. Obviously, looking down was his mistake--he was looking down b/c he wanted to send a message to the big guy that he didn't actually want to fight, but that was too little, too late at that point. I disagree with an above commentator that the confrontation was inevitable. I think that if he had stood straight up in a ready position and maintained proper distance and balance, there is probably a good chance that the attacker would not have struck him at all. The first swing did not begin until AFTER the "victim" looked downward, so I don't know if an attack was inevitable, or perhaps the outcome was not inevitable. So that was his first mistake.

If he had been looking up (and like I said, if he had been looking up, he may not have been hit at all), he could easily have got off the line of attack, b/c the first slap/punch took a full second of cocking back and preparing before it actually made contact. Ikkyo may be hard to do without moving first (not much space there) b/c moving the attacker's arm would be difficult since he is so big and probably strong, but he could have led the attacker's energy toward him (the victim), moving toward around the attacker (sort of towards the door) somewhat like kokyu or irimi nage until the attacker's force was dissipated and then use ikkyo or many other techniques (some of which I haven't learned yet). I've never used aikido in a real life combat situation, but if I had to guess, I'd say he could've resolved this situation using aikido.

Infamousapa
03-01-2005, 09:26 PM
I Think The Problem With The Fight Was We Didnt See What Caused The Beef....notice That The Guy That Got Nailed Seemed As If He Had Started Somethin He Couldnt Step Up To...we Dont Know If He Was Out Of Line Or Not.yet He Seemed Very Regretful In The Situation....one Must Always Be Right In The Situation, Unless You Have A Wicked Heart And Dont Live By Principals Then You Dont Need Much To Get The Heart To Hurt Someone.
A Lot Of You Like To Write A Lot And Watch Carefully Not To Mispronounce Words When You Write And Seem Very Intelligent...however When Action Is Required In The Situation What Will You Really Do??life Is Not A Joke And Certainly The Video Link Clearly Displayed It...however Be Real To Yourself And Try To Balance Yourselves Between Everything In Life......have Your Principals...god Bless.

AikiSean!
03-01-2005, 10:18 PM
The very first thing I said when he was having a verbal moment with the attacker was - WAY to close. Mai-ai was very very poor, but of course the guys probably not trained. He definately had no focus and was not alert(cell phone). I think those to things alone may have alteast spared him of such a direct blow, and it wouldnt have been as devastating. I head that guy got sentenced to 4 years in jail already. Anyone heard the same?

eyrie
03-01-2005, 10:42 PM
This is classic "what not to do in a SD situation"...
What the vic should've done is this:
1. Never take your eyes off the aggressor(s)
2. Be aware of your surroundings
3. Look for an escape route and try to position yourself near it
4. Put down the goddamn phone!!!!
5. Raised both his hands and attempt to diffuse the situation - helps block potential face strikes too.
6. As soon as intent is clear and combative distancing is breached, duck and taken the knee of the lead leg out first
7. NEVER EVER TURN YOUR BACK ON THE AGGRESSOR. NEVER....
8. Never get into a grappling match with someone that size. Always take out the joints first - preferably the suspension ones FIRST.
9. Always have a follow-up technique or 2 or 3 or 6 :)
10. Be prepared for spectator involvement and if necessary, remove the threat
11. Exit/run

I don't know that I would do anything differently, or that any MA training would have helped. It's easy to be an armchair commentator. In reality, many in that situation would not be able to overcome the adrenal dump and would've been frozen to the spot. The only way I've found to avoid the adrenal dump is to suspend all ethical and moral consequences and go for the quick "kill".

Not very "aiki" (whatever that means) - but when one's life and livelihood is at stake, I don't know that any other response would be appropriate. Especially, not when said aggressors are intent on assaulting and occassioning bodily harm to you.

Erik
03-02-2005, 01:34 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the role the woman played in all of this. She committed multiple assaults: spitting on the employee and hitting cell phone guy in the back of the head. She was looking for trouble for whatever reason and the poor bastards were it. Plus, I bet that she knew exactly how the guy would react in that situation.

As to what you do, well, you get screwed. The only thing, and I doubt very many people could have pulled this off, would be to leave the moment the woman went psycho but then you'd have to know what was waiting outside. On the other hand, you might get worse outside..

Sure, lots wrong from a self-defense point but I suspect the guy was just trying to be invisible (like everyone else) which is also a tactic. You just put your head down and try to stay out of the way. As to the cell phone, well, no way he was thinking clearly at that point but I'm not confident any of us would have been smarter.

senshincenter
03-02-2005, 01:36 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the role the woman played in all of this.

Several folks mentioned her - even counted her as a second attacker.

Nathan Pereira
03-02-2005, 03:27 AM
Like Mike said for me the most shocking thing was how the half a dozen or so men did nothing and even after just ignored the guy on the floor. Cowards.

Biggest mistake he made was squaring up to the guy. That is just dumb. Squaring up to 300lb guy is even dumber you won't stand a chance unless you know you can walk the walk. As soon as the guy fronted him he should have stepped back and been ready. He shouldn't have even given him the opportunity to get his hands near him without being in a position to defend himself. If it was me being a shorty I would have pounded on his balls, punching, kicking, pulling what ever it took.

ESimmons
03-02-2005, 06:36 AM
I don't think criticizing the bystanders for inaction is fair. Because they all stood there and minded their own business, cell phone guy got beat down, T-Rex left, and that was the end of story. Keep in mind these people could not afford themselves the degree of detached retrospection that we can viewing this video in front of our computer screens.

If I was there, I'm probably thinking "I should go help this guy out, but then what if T-Rex just turns around and decapitates me too? Maybe some other guys will jump in to help, but what if they get hurt too? What if we wreck the place? What if T-Rex comes back tomorrow with his homies and shoots up the place?" etc., and keep in mind in this time frame I don't even really know the whole story of what's going on, plus cell phone guy is all up in T-Rex's face to begin with, so is it really my place? Really, all I want is my pizza.

jss
03-02-2005, 07:49 AM
About all the passive bystanders, who are blamed by some for just doing nothing: psychology has shown that this is the most common reaction, expecting that someone else will intervene.
Some numbers: if people thought they were the only witness to an assualt, 85% came to the aid of the victim after on average 52 seconds; if they thought there were 4 other witnesses, 31% did something after 166 secs on average.
And a horrible story to illustrate my point furhter: Kitty Genovese was beaten to death in 30 minutes, there were 38 witnesses living nearby, hearing her scream and seeing what happened from their windows. Not one of them came to her aid.
(Numbers and story come from my psychology class at university.)

So ironically, if there were fewer people in that pizza parlor the victim might have gotten some help.

John Boswell
03-02-2005, 10:44 AM
Mistakes the victim made:

1) Talking smack with a woman. She was almost his own size! I think SHE could have taken him out... and who is going to win a fight between a man and a woman? The woman will, because the guy should have never laid a hand on her in the first place.

2) Being arrogant. The guy should have kept his mouth shut in the first place. Talking out loud so that everyone could hear was a sign of disrespect. The woman, though in the wrong, was thereby challenged and had to do something about it. And she did.

3) Body language. Don't "puff up" and act all bad unless your ready to see it through. Clearly, he wasn't... not even with the woman. He thought he was... he was dead wrong. ESPECIALLY when Bubba walked in.

4) Don't jack with Bubba. That guy was HUGE! NEVER tell someone that size that you are right and he and his girl friend are wrong. That's just STUPID! Pride got in the way of common sense. Anytime I see someone that size coming my way, I make it a point for them to know I'm on their side... even though I'm probably not. By doing that, I'm no longer a threat. THEN... if I need to do something to defend myself or another... it'll be coming out of the blue. They won't know what hit him.

5) After the fight started, he should have gone under the counter or out the door. That space was too damn small to do anything with, it was TWO against ONE and no one standing around was going to interject. Running one way or another was his only choice at that point. BUT... sitting there and taking it was stupid as well. If you get knocked down... MOVE! Don't sit there and hope they stop. That's as stupid and starting that crap in the first place.

Personally, I'd like to see the "victim" get ticketed for assult. He was acting in a threatening way against the girl and that was wrong. That is what started the whole damn thing and he needs to understand that as well.

But that's just me...

PS: No amount of aikido (techniques) I know would have helped. That space was too small to do a damn thing and the guy was too strong. Who here can honestly say they could have locked down a wrist lock on that guy? If you can, you've been at aikido for over five years and really know your stuff... or your lying to yourself. I'm a big dude, and I wouldn't have even bothered. You screw it up, your dead.

Ron Tisdale
03-02-2005, 11:05 AM
Hi John,

Frankly, I think you are pretty on target. There are a lot of posts on the net about how bad a fighter the big guy is, how untrained, clumsy, etc. I don't buy it. The guy is certainly no pro, but you can see he has a LOT of experience as a bully. He reads the environment and his target well to ensure there is no real threat to himself. He is fairly relaxed and balanced throughout his attack. Even though he is throwing HUGE bombs, he only loses his balance (you can see him bobble a bit) a little. I think he is probably moving with stiff or locked knees a lot from what shows.

That said, this guy is a serious menace; his size alone dictates run away if possible. Wrist locks??? forget it. That's why I suggested hiji-shime/wakigatami. Go straight to the elbow after extending his balance. If it was just him, take it straight to the floor. But in the victim's situation that is not advisable. Even with hiji-shime, its an even bet the guy won't just shake someone my size off like an annoying toy poodle...or worse yet, literally throw you on your head with shear power.

RT

Mark Mueller
03-02-2005, 12:03 PM
Given that Guy's size and aggressive nature I doubt most shihan could have controlled that guy at that distance.....sometimes discretion is just the better part of valor.

The best advice for this particular situation......is don't get into this type of situation.

mctaylor
03-02-2005, 12:38 PM
Hi All,

Having sat and watched the video and read everyone's responses, I only have a couple comments.

I don't disagree that the victim probably brought this on himself, but blaming him seems a little harsh given the beating that he took. The attacker was clearly aware that this was no match and showed no restraint whatsoever. This attacker should go to jail and I hope he serves the entire 4 years.

I'm too new in Aikido to make comments re: techniques for situations like this, but I certainly agree with the many posts that speak to de-escalation or leaving the pizza place ASAP. I also agree with earlier posts that the bystanders should have made some sort of effort, although easier said than done given the enormity of the attacker.

I now remember why I prefer frozen pizzas!

Mark

Ron Tisdale
03-02-2005, 01:11 PM
Here's what an office mate asked me: what exactly would I do as a bystander. My answer was

a) use a cell phone (from the appropriate distance) to call 911
b) loudly start telling the attacker to leave that man alone
c) try to inlist two or three other men to toss that nut's butt out the door.

The problem with b and c is that you don't know for sure if the guy is armed! Even if 3 of you approach him, if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting, everyone in the place is now at risk.

What would YOU do as a bystander?

Ron

L. Camejo
03-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Interesting posts.

My main thoughts when looking at the video, as far as the victim goes - no sense of awareness of personal space (talking on the cell phone in the midst of a physical altercation??) and of keeping good distance from an aggressor, bad decisions in playing tough guy one moment and then trying to de escalate when the Big Guy comes into the fray and then failing to run out the door (regardless of whether the woman was blocking or not) after he got the first shot. The problem was he did nothing to actually try to defend himself. Or at least nothing even remotely effective based on the different stages of the encounter. He pretty much went automatically into victim mode.

To me this video shows a single important thing - how unprepared many of us are for dealing with "real", serious and targeted violence and how we behave (or fail to adequately adjust) when it suddenly shatters our glass house of "expected civilised social behavioural norms". It's interesting that at no point did the basic animal instinct to escape or run for one's life trigger. Imo the victim had a few opportunities to escape the altercation, well before the physical attacks started and also during the attack before he was put out on the floor. At his size the woman blocking the door could not have stopped him if he was seriously motivated and intent on running for his life. He'd have plowed right through her. This to me says something about the mental conditioning involved. Is it that when we get attacked in the "civilised" world that we are thinking "call 911" and "lawsuits" instead of basic survival first?

As far as head being down when he got the punch, he was pretty much looking at the striking hand (or at least looking in its specific direction) as the punch came. This should have triggered at least some sort of primitive reflexive/flinch defence mechanism such as raising the hands to protect the face or something. After already being accosted by the woman in a hostile manner he should have been in some sort of heightened alert state which would have allowed this, as is normal with our basic untrained responses to aggression.

As far as what I would do in that situation I think it's easy with hindsight to say anything. But having been in a very similar one I know what I'd do and have done - someone above said Shomen Ate, I was thinking along similar lines - Shomen ate carried straight thru towards the door and into the woman, letting his off balanced weight take her with him and clear the door for my escape - I'd forget joint locks, at that degree of danger I'd be snapping not subduing, but one never knows, if it presents itself, hey why not.:D The good thing about big guys is that when they do go down they go down HARD, so take out the structure and pray the don't know ukemi.:evileyes: Going to the floor could be suicide unless you are an exceptional grappler. As a pretty big guy myself I know what a little knowledge about using bodyweight can do in a ground situation, and then there is the woman there waiting to kick your brains in - not my first choice.

But to be very honest I'd not have been in the situation to begin with, since I don't let anyone get as close as that woman got with any sort of aggressive energy to start. Also, due to awareness I'd kinda sense that the guy who came storming in the door in a huff after the manager probably had something to do with the woman who was making trouble, so I'd make my escape right after the big guy entered (since the victim was also a target of the woman's rage before she tackled the manager). Judging by the aggressive and agitative energy she alone possessed I can only imagine what Big Guy would be compelled to do even if he were not so willing.

Also, what Tony S. said about the possibility of help from others being determined by how many people were there, I'd say that is about correct. The more people watching, the more people who think someone else is gonna help. Hence why when something happens and 911 needs to be called you pick someone (hopefully who has a phone) and say "YOU - call 911" else everyone else assumes that someone will do it. Weird if you ask me, but true.

Just my 2 cents.
LC:ai::ki:

Adam Alexander
03-02-2005, 03:15 PM
Regarding the bystanders 'just watching because they're scared.'

I would of just watched to. Not because I was scared, but because I watched that guy inviting it. I'm a big fan of people minding their own business. Seems to me that that guy wanted to fight. Who am I to impose my values (breaking up the fight he wanted)?


Regarding 'looking down' at the cell phone.

No doubt, he shouldn't of done it. However, recheck the film with this in mind. The motions were a part of the "tough-guy" routine. His gestures were saying,"alright, now I'm going to set this down and take care of you."

Regarding 'I don't know any Aikido that would of been handy here.'

Haven't you been practicing your side strikes as uke? Duck and side-strike the back of the head. He was vulnerable when he followed through on the punch.

What about your step-in thrusts? Haven't you noticed that it's a palm-heel strike to the chin? When he rears back to strike, he was susceptible.

Aikido's a study in balance, with that in mine, we have a few more rudimentary options: If fatty's left foot was forward, when his weight was forward through the swing, you could duck, slide between his right side and the on-lookers, grab his leg (which being all his weights on the front foot, should be pretty easy to lift), let him fall on his face, walk out while slapping his g.f. for the trouble:)

If his right foot is forward, duck, grab his leg and make him fall back as he's recovering his balance from all of it moving forward. Then slide out to your right, slapping the g.f. for the trouble on the way out:)


I once used the step-in thrust/palm heel like that. It works.

Ron Tisdale
03-02-2005, 03:24 PM
Humph, when any of my instructors see me 'duck' they tell me 'this is japanese martial arts...no ducking...enter....' :)

I'd like to think a palm strike (shomen ate, which has been mentioned in this thread) would do the trick...but frankly, with someone that big, I don't think I'm going 'inside'...I prefer to chip around the edges, let him lean toward me, and extend him. But hey, its all monday morning quarterbacking, so who can tell?

Adam Alexander
03-02-2005, 03:35 PM
just my experience

DaveO
03-02-2005, 04:00 PM
Hindsight is, of course, 20-20. Of course you don't lip of to a woman with a 300-lb. bully. Of course you don't face off with said bully. What could be simpler?

Hmm. Far as I can see; this was as close to an unavoidable incident I've ever seen - good example of why 'if you don't look for trouble, trouble won't find you' doesn't always work.

As I read these posts; opinion is almost unanimous that the guy 'got what was coming' to paraphrase. One even said he would have stood by and watched - not because of the risk of getting involved which is either sensible or cowardly, depending on your outlook but because he's a 'big fan of people minding their own business'.

NOW let's look at it from the victim's point of view.
He's in a line waiting for pizza talking on his cellphone when some woman pushes rudely ahead of him. He makes the comment that is apparently the one acceptable reason for violence: "It's going to be a bit later..."
Just to be clear, I would not have said that myself. I'd have said "Hey! Get to the back of the damn line, you!" Go ahead - call me rude.
Ohhhhhhh - but you don't say that when her boyfriend is 300lbs!!!!!
Well yeah - but he wasn't there at the time was he?

This was flat-out an unplanned trap. Unplanned in that these two had no intention of going in to beat some guy up, but a trap nonetheless. Both were a ticking time bomb - she much worse than he. The 'Bully' is nothing more than a p-----y puppet 'standing up' (in his little peanut brain) for his girl, and using the excuse to get some free ego points at the same time.

OK, well the victim certainly shouldn't have squared off with the big dude, right?
Yo - Where was he gonna go?!? He was cornered - jammed in by 2 walls, customers, a psycho b*tch and a meat wall. Apart from that initial "WTF is your problem?" when she cuffs him, his attitude looked to me like the usual "Hey look now..." useless conciliation many people show. He was outclassed, he knew it, he was trying to be nonconfrontational.
No awareness skills, no defensife skills, he left himself wide open for the attack - not that it would have mattered.

IMO there was nothing the victim could have done given the situation to avoid the beating - the perp wanted to cause violence and didn't care one whit about anything else.

Now if the victim was trained? Diff story maybe, but I don't know, I doubt it. I'll bet anything big dude was armed - no need to pull it while everything was his way. If it turns around well......

willy_lee
03-02-2005, 07:30 PM
As usual, DaveO nails it.

Of course you look at it and think of what could have been done differently. Work on your deescalation skills. Work on tactics for when the deescalation doesn't work. But I doubt as many as 0.1% of the general population would have been able to avoid a busted face if you were in that guy's position.

Much less of a size disparity and equal or greater viciousness/ferocity and willingness to hit first-- maybe.

Insanely great deescalation skills, about Ghandi level, perhaps Houdini-like illusion ability -- maybe.

A really good fighter, with training and experience to deal with that first bomb -- maybe.

Hey, it's easy to look at the video and see that first punch coming. Maybe not so easy when down on the ground. In fact, the slow windup can actually help hide the coming punch -- it may look like he's just slightly turning away and get "lost in the noise". Looks like Big Guy may have had practice with that little trick. A lot of practice.

And hey, I wouldn't spend too much time criticizing the victim's actions after that punch lands. Unless you train regularly when semi-conscious.

=wl

Rupert Atkinson
03-02-2005, 08:00 PM
Why is the loser always the victim? It just depends from which time you start watching. In my youth I witnessed several nasty fights and in most cases, both started it. If the not-so-little-guy had suddenly pounced on and trampled the big guy you might all be discussing what the new victim did wrong. Fighting is stupid - and sooner or later that big-guys recklessness will be reveresed upon him. Indeed, he got videoed beating the hell out of someone for little apparent reason - not so smart.

L. Camejo
03-02-2005, 08:56 PM
And hey, I wouldn't spend too much time criticizing the victim's actions after that punch lands. Unless you train regularly when semi-conscious.

Well that's interesting. I guess as soon as we get hit hard by someone we should just curl up and kiss it all goodbye and not even try to escape (not fight mind you, escape). Interesting concept.

I have a few folks (Boxing types) who train and get hit a lot, sometimes I join them for the experience of getting hit. I agree one's options can get quickly and extremely limited after the first shot lands (especially if you are dumb enough to let it land at full force), but in the video the "victim" was punched in a way that placed him nearer to the point of escape than he had been before the altercation. In fact he was in the doorway at one point and still standing. Instead of turning to go back towards danger (which is what he did), primal instinct dictates "run away from danger" until one's legs gave out if necessary. This has nothing to do with training. To me, it appears the "Victim" may have believed his own bad boy BS so much that he did not know what to do when placed on the receiving end of Bullydom (is that a word?):p.

Dave-O said: Far as I can see; this was as close to an unavoidable incident I've ever seen - good example of why 'if you don't look for trouble, trouble won't find you' doesn't always work.

I totally agree with Dave. What I am wondering though is if we are placed in an "unavoidable incident" as Dave says above, do we do nothing because the guy is decidedly bigger, stronger etc.? Given whatever training we do I mean. Last time I checked (in Aikido) one did not allow the attacker to take one's energy and will to survive via intimidation tactics, and even when it does happen, do we not even make an attempt to survive? This last part has not much to do with the video, but the second part of the question. What would you do? Remember, self defence is not about fighting (which is what happens after you have failed at the more effective aspects like conflict evasion), it is about surviving and escaping. Do we give up as soon as we get hit or realise the guy is bigger, stronger or has friends and we can't run away, or do we try something that helps us get into a favourable escape situation at some point during the conflict?

Just my 2 cents. I reserve the right to be wrong.
LC:ai::ki:

DaveO
03-02-2005, 10:00 PM
Hi Larry. :)

From what I see; the victim's body language is - after the "WTF?" from the female's initial strike (Which to be honest - who wouldn't do?) entirely conciliatory. He's not presenting a 'tough guy' stand - his arms are down, palms outward, shoulders slumped etc. Classic submissive behaviour.
While we're blaming one guy or the other here; let's not lose sight of the true instigator: the female. She was the one that was causing/inflaming this whole thing. Bid dude was following her lead; even though he might not have believed so himself. Not to justify in any way his actions, but they are understandable. (To be clear; I mean that not as justification but in the same way that we understand why a mugger will go after a little old lady instead of a seven foot biker.) She was completely out of control, her 'boyfriend' followed suit.
Quite frankly, the guy was toast the second the big guy walked in - the determination to do violence had already been made.
Now - to the victim's actions: Yes, the attacker's first strike knocked him near the door, but this was no boxing punch, it was a full-power bare knuckle shot to the head. The guy might have been in the open door, but for the second he was there was far too stunned to take advantage of it. No-one I believe would take a hit like that without getting his jingle jangled.
The victim is clear for approx. a second - though the second strike doesn't come for about 4 seconds after the first; the attacker has a hold of the victim by the right arm, or at least appears to. Also, keep in mind the shot knocked the guy to the door, which pushed the woman, who was blocking the door, outside. IOW, keeping him in. In any event, he does try to move to the door when the attacker strikes again with a hammerhand in the back of the skull. Effectively, lights out at that point.

Now; as to your other point:
What I am wondering though is if we are placed in an "unavoidable incident" as Dave says above, do we do nothing because the guy is decidedly bigger, stronger etc.? Given whatever training we do I mean. Last time I checked (in Aikido) one did not allow the attacker to take one's energy and will to survive via intimidation tactics, and even when it does happen, do we not even make an attempt to survive?
Sorry Larry; I'm not really sure what you mean by this. In the video, the guy had given up simply because there was no fight in him - he was a rag doll after those two massive hits. Aikido-wise; I suppose its possible - highly doubtful, but possible - that a highly experienced practicioner (Say 8th dan or so) could effectively redirect that shot. Undoubtedly could on the mat; but again, we're talking about two different things here. Aikido is one answer - it is not the whole answer.
As for myself and what I would have done, I'd have struck first - attacked full-force high and low - to the head and knee simultaneously. Hardly aiki and likely not effective, but in that situation given the environment the only real chance I'd have. The big guy was in control of the situation - he chose the moment of the attack and held the initiative. Tactically, you have to take the initiative yourself and force the opponent onto the defensive if you're to escape an SD situation and in this case; the only real way to do that is a sudden blast attack. Remember; the guy thinks like a Grizzly bear: "I'm the Biggest Baddest Dude, I can Do What I Want." He's not expecting an attack; especially a paired destabilization/antistructural strike. It's the only shot I'd get, I'd make sure it was the most effective possible.
Is that aiki? No way - the very antithesis. Is it legal? Possibly - it's definitely in that blurry area in which you'll be convinving a judge. But letting a monster like that keep the initiative is like trying to tenkan with a freight train. :)
Now; from a purely aikido perspective: going frame by frame; it's possible (again assuming a high degree of control and ability - far, far above what I posess) the victim could have at the moment of attack slidestepped into a modified tenkan to avoid the initial strike. Of course; that'd send him directly into the psycho girlfriend, who was blocking the door. From that point, the 'maybe's' start to build exponentially.
End result: A two-on-one attack in which the victim had no real means of escape or avoidance. He was targeted, he was isolated, he was taken out and nothing - save every person in that building jumping on the pair and likely even not that - could have stopped it.

Rupert Atkinson
03-02-2005, 10:35 PM
Did anyone notice? After it's over the big guy drags his 'victim' about - as though with some purpose in mind - then picks up the 'victim's phone and walks off with it.

Dave Organ wrote:
I suppose its possible - highly doubtful, but possible - that a highly experienced practicioner (Say 8th dan or so) could effectively redirect that shot.

Redirect that? Are you joking? Not even remotlely possible (although part of me would like it to be possible). The average 8th Dan Aikido is usually over 65-70 years old - unless you are referring to some of those 8th Dan+ young guns from the Bad Budo section of E-Budo (not possible for them either). More likely, the 8th Dan Aikido would not get into such a situation in the first place.

Erik
03-03-2005, 01:09 AM
Did anyone notice? After it's over the big guy drags his 'victim' about - as though with some purpose in mind - then picks up the 'victim's phone and walks off with it.

I saw it. Good news too because it will add to the list of charges but also interesting because it suggests a degree of impunity when it comes to this sort of thing.

Dave, nice posts.

To all of you talking about the bystanders, mayhaps you should also be thinking about gang affiliation which also means guns. As a bystander you dial 911, get ready to be a damn fine witness if called upon and put out nice thoughts. Plus, maybe the bystanders recognized that in the guy which is why they got the hell out of the way.

So, what do you do? You do something crazy or outside the box. You get your ass behind the counter with the staff, if you can. You drop to your knees and bow profusely per the Terry Dobsen technique. You deck the guy next to you. You start a verbal confrontation with the guy next to you. You beat the crap out of your jacket per the Richie Cunningham technique. You grab some furniture (tables and chairs) and start throwing it around while making an even bigger ruckus than psycho woman, plus a chair can be a weapon. You break out in song. Anything to break the pattern of disorientation by the woman and assault by the guy. But really, who is going to do this stuff?

Fighting is also a no-win for one more reason. If you had precognitive abilities and knew what was coming then you have to deck the woman before the guy comes in. Remember, she might have a weapon so she HAS to go down, and stay down, in my opinion. Anyone up for that? I'm not?

Then you have to attack him, first, with murderous intent, hopefully while he's tending to the woman. But you can only do that IF you know what's coming and even then it just might get you killed rather than concussed. Plus, then you get to go to jail where he's certain to have more friends than you do. And, as Dave pointed out the guy is probably armed. So, basically, you have to kill him. Something else I'd prefer not to be up to.

Honestly, a beating and a few brain cells isn't that harsh a price given some of the alternatives.

Chris Birke
03-03-2005, 01:31 AM
I think it's good to reflect upon what happened here. Clearly you can get the crap beaten out of you, and it will leave you permanantly injured, and no one will help you until after the fact.

batemanb
03-03-2005, 02:43 AM
I have a few folks (Boxing types) who train and get hit a lot, sometimes I join them for the experience of getting hit. I agree one's options can get quickly and extremely limited after the first shot lands (especially if you are dumb enough to let it land at full force), but in the video the "victim" was punched in a way that placed him nearer to the point of escape than he had been before the altercation. In fact he was in the doorway at one point and still standing. Instead of turning to go back towards danger (which is what he did), primal instinct dictates "run away from danger" until one's legs gave out if necessary. This has nothing to do with training. To me, it appears the "Victim" may have believed his own bad boy BS so much that he did not know what to do when placed on the receiving end of Bullydom (is that a word?):p.


Hi Larry,

I've watched it a couple of times now, I just go "oooof" everytime I see that first punch. Ignoring the who started it, who said what, who deserved what arguments, personally, I think that it's a hell of an assumption for any of us to say the guy should have done this or that after he got hit. None of us were on the end of the punch. We may train in Aikido or other arts, we may practice with boxers at getting hit. We understand things such as ma ai and tai sabaki, and using these to protect ourselves to the best of our abilities, but does he? We have no idea. Everyone takes punches differently, some have harder heads than others, some have different pain tolerances, some absorb punches better, there's a whole load of factors involved here that we just didn't experience. Of course, "armchair quarterbacking" a term mentioned above, allows us to give our opinions, but we shouldn't assume that he was capable of anything.

If someone hit me with a big punch like that, I reckon I'd be out for the count, if not I reckon I'd be in a very, very dazed state like, even if I was on my feet. Looking at the guys reaction, I don't think he was on his feet for any reason other than the door stopped him from falling down, if you look closely you'll see his knees buckle a bit after he stands still, then the second panch rains in. He was out for the count. I was ringside when Lennox Lewis caught Razor Ruddock with a big punch on the side of the head, Ruddock jerked upright like a coiled spring and went down like a sack of potatos, that was a guy trained to take punches.

despite our experiences of training and getting hit, I just don't think that any of us really know what the guy felt, or what he could do after.

If it was me in the pizza parlour, I'd just hope that I didn't get into that type of situation in the first place :eek:.

rgds

Bryan

PeterR
03-03-2005, 03:04 AM
This is why I hang out in Dojos rather than Pizza Parlors - far safer. :D

maikerus
03-03-2005, 03:41 AM
As Bryan said, I think that first punch really did the guy in. It didn't look like he could think or anything.

His only chance would probably have been to somehow (even accidently) block the punch so he could run. Maybe when he got knocked to the door he could've tried to throw the woman at the big guy, but that would probably have enraged everyone even more.

Glad it wasn't me. Hope I don't get there. Glad to have read the points brought up on this thread though.

cheers,

--Michael

L. Camejo
03-03-2005, 08:40 AM
Interesting coments.

I like Peter's the best.:)

I guess it comes down to what you train for and how true to yourself you are about that. And I totally agree that anyone, including myself can say what woulda, shoulda, coulda happened after the fact and not being there. The only thing I made indications to were primal untrained instincts of the human animal towards survival even when in a semi conscious state, which I guess are not as common as I might think.

Having been in a very similar one though, I know there are options, both within and outside of Aikido to survive that incident, taking initiative is key. But then again I don't expect that to apply to everyone else either, since folks train for many different reasons. As far as 8th Dans being the only capable Aikidoka to handle an unarmed situation such as this, well I don't agree with that at all, but then again, just my opinion. Like I said, it depends on your reasons for training.;)

Just my opinion. I reserve the right to be wrong.
LC:ai::ki:

Adam Alexander
03-03-2005, 01:17 PM
opinion is almost unanimous that the guy 'got what was coming' to paraphrase. One even said he would have stood by and watched - not because of the risk of getting involved which is either sensible or cowardly, depending on your outlook but because he's a 'big fan of people minding their own business'.

This was flat-out an unplanned trap. Unplanned in that these two had no intention of going in to beat some guy up, but a trap nonetheless. Both were a ticking time bomb - she much worse than he. The 'Bully' is nothing more than a p-----y puppet 'standing up' (in his little peanut brain) for his girl, and using the excuse to get some free ego points at the same time.

OK, well the victim certainly shouldn't have squared off with the big dude, right?


First, that guy was looking for it by the way he acted. Therefore, this is not an instance of "when not looking for trouble..."

Two, "not getting involved," as I said, isn't smart or cowardly. It's respecting the privacy of the "victim" who initiated the trouble.

Three, as far as someone cutting the line, it's not the consumer's job to maintain order in someone else's business--it's the business owners job. If you say something to someone cutting the line and it's not your business--expect a problem.

senshincenter
03-03-2005, 02:14 PM
First, that guy was looking for it by the way he acted. Therefore, this is not an instance of "when not looking for trouble..."

Two, "not getting involved," as I said, isn't smart or cowardly. It's respecting the privacy of the "victim" who initiated the trouble.

Three, as far as someone cutting the line, it's not the consumer's job to maintain order in someone else's business--it's the business owners job. If you say something to someone cutting the line and it's not your business--expect a problem.

I think we've left the field of self-defense tactics and entered into life choices and/or options. So, let me ask, are you suggesting:

1. Being displeased with someone smacking you in the face - enough to stand up for yourself (but not returning the gesture in kind) is "asking for it"? Should we not draw the line or mark the difference between what he actually did - which was a response - and what some other person is doing when they initiate such hostility? In other words, and specifically, isn't what the woman did (hitting him when he was on the phone) the "asking for it," and what the man did (as was said earlier in the thread) what any other person might do (were her mate not there and were he not intent on such an act of violence)?

2. If what I'm asking in the above question allows for us to consider the victim as someone different from who was "asking for it," does he really posses a privacy bystanders should "respect." To be sure, it is a kind of terrorism that took place then and there (it's just not at a political level - rather at a personal level), and in this age of terrorism, is that a kind of privacy we should be so prone to respect? What if it was a political type of terrorism? Are we supposed to respect the government's "due coming" just because we didn't vote for the current administration and/or do not agree with its policies? Or are we right in saying that whereas terrorism against our government does indeed effect us, terrorism in our neighborhoods when it is aimed a personal level does not? One would be hard pressed to make that distinction - I feel. Hence, I think folks in the thread that are noting apathy, cowardice, a lack of concern for one's fellow man and/or one's culture, etc., might be dead on here.

3. I agree, it's the business' job to keep order in the line. However, saying something, and expecting something, are entirely different from deserving what actually came to occur. At least where I live, that kind of beating for speaking up over someone cutting in line is never going to be understood as a natural consequence of things that happened. It's always going to be seen as "out of the ordinary." This is one reason its on Ebaum's World - right? While I hope that we all live in a world where that kind of thing never happens, I more hope that we all live in a world where when that kind of thing does happen it's always considered out of the ordinary - never a natural consequence of speaking up and/or for reminding folks of the way we all expect business cues to operate.

senshincenter
03-03-2005, 02:28 PM
Yes, I realize that Self-Defense has need for us to consider our life-choices most carefully, it's just when we start talking about "deserving this" or "deserving that" we are more making moral statements than we are addressing concerns of Self-Defense - in my opinion.

Dan Herak
03-03-2005, 03:29 PM
Regarding the bystanders 'just watching because they're scared.'

I would of just watched to. Not because I was scared, but because I watched that guy inviting it.



I would respond to this by saying I will keep the same sentiment in mind when a woman wearing a short skirt and acting provocatively is raped, but I will not because a couple of things called class and compassion prevent me from doing so.

Although the victim may have puffed a bit, it was in no possible way enough to warrant this type of response. This is especially true given that the man could have been justifiably annoyed at the truly obnoxious behavior of the woman cutting in line and screaming. Although taking a passive approach may be best, I would not blame the victim for expressing annoyance. Blaming the victim, however, appears to be something with which you are quite comfortable.

DaveO
03-03-2005, 03:48 PM
Blaming the victim, however, appears to be something with which you are quite comfortable.

There's no call for ab-hominem attacks here. Nor call to respond to them. Let's please keep this civil and argue the points.

bkedelen
03-03-2005, 04:06 PM
One of my mentors once told me that the core of his art is that "There are no victims, there are only volunteers". Everyone but the most helpless child must take at least some responsibility for everything that happens in their life.

Adam Alexander
03-03-2005, 04:28 PM
1...In other words, and specifically, isn't what the woman did (hitting him when he was on the phone) the "asking for it," and what the man did (as was said earlier in the thread) what any other person might do (were her mate not there and were he not intent on such an act of violence)?

2. .... Hence, I think folks in the thread that are noting apathy, cowardice, a lack of concern for one's fellow man and/or one's culture, etc., might be dead on here.

3. I agree, it's the business' job to keep order in the line. However, saying something, and expecting something, are entirely different from deserving what actually came to occur.


Regarding 1) Whenever a situation develops, you've got the choice between escalation and de-escalation--nothing else. If you're a party to the escalation, it's your choice--he made that choice by saying something.

Now, I'm not saying she was right. But he was definitely wrong(this is personal opinion formed out of the belief that the property owner has the right to run the business how he likes without my interference). Again, it's the business owners business. If you don't like people cutting the line, go somewhere else. If every business allows people to cut the line and you don't like it, start your own pizza shop where you'll take care of people who cut the line.

Regarding 2) Irrelevant being that I still see the pizza man as asking for it.

Regarding 3) I think this one boils down to personal beliefs. Apparently, I believe that the solution to such a problem is to stop supporting a business who doesn't care enough about me to handle such an issue. The solutions, again, is to leave and pay people who, in this case, keep order.

For those who disagree with me, it appears to me, that you have the belief that you have the right to direct the order of someone else's business.

My thought on that is that you subscribe to the same ideology as the line cutter. You have a belief about how things should be run and then you implement them.


Dan H., I do believe that a woman acting in a certain way is asking for it--in the same way that if I were tap dancing in front of a rattle snake, I'm asking to get bit. It's nature. You can't change that.

Adam Alexander
03-03-2005, 04:36 PM
One other thing. About "ducking" the punch, change it to "drop your center."

senshincenter
03-03-2005, 05:54 PM
Well I am not sure which is a sadder view of Man – that He can be so apathetic (which as I said is an interpretation I tend to agree with here – with other folks in the thread) or that He is both subject and slave to impulses and/or instincts that are akin to the mechanisms behind a rattlesnake’s bite. The latter one is just too jaded for me to hold – whether or not my own life experiences (and the expectations I place upon myself) can add support to such a position (and they can’t).

It is an old philosophical position, one shared by almost every spiritual system, that Man and animal, though related, are not wholly equitable. This is particularly true in regards to Man’s capacity to reason (to use his heart/mind – the very aspect we seek to cultivate via Aikido) and thus to distance him/herself from any initial impulses that we might refer to as “animalistic.” So central is Man’s capacity to utilize his heart/mind in this fashion that without this philosophical premise there is in fact no Aikido – no need for anything Osensei did or said. This is basic Meng Tzu – this understanding of the heart/mind of Man and thus of the Nature of Man. Meng Tzu, who was studied by Osensei in his formal education, is at the heart of the Founder’s understanding of what all we can and should achieve through Aikido training.

It may be true that there are men and women out there who act and think at the level of animals – if we want to say such a thing – but these folks are not closer to Nature. There existence and their actions are not justified through inevitability. In fact, they go against human nature – they go against their own Nature when they fail to utilize their heart/mind in relation to their impulses. For this reason, unlike animals, unlike a rattlesnake that bites at a tap dancer, these folks are quite unwell (e.g. loaded with depression, plagued by self-destructive tendencies, burdened with anger, fear, and ignorance). When a rattlesnake bites at the heels of a tap dancer, it is one with itself. When a man or a woman acts like a rattlesnake that bites at a tap dancer, he or she is lost to him/herself.

To say someone “deserves” such a response from someone else is to say indirectly that Man is doomed to being lost. At the most, for those of us who have grown up where poverty breeds violence and violence breeds more poverty, and both things breed an alienation from the conventions of culture, we may want to say, “It was most unwise to respond to the woman’s aggressions, or to start what you cannot finish,” but this is a long way from the notion that he got what he deserved.

When a man or a woman acts like a rattlesnake, it is most unnatural. Thus, there is not truth in it, no matter how many times it happens. When a man or a woman acts without reference to their own heart/mind there is only disease. This may sound like philosophical mumbo-jumbo to some of you, but where I grew up, where animal-men and animal-women did abound, we as a community, just as those individuals knew about themselves too, we all knew that they were sick - we all knew they were abominations against their own humanity. Neither the regularity of violence, nor the jadedness we may have come to feel when fear overpowered us, really allowed any of us to understand such departures from human nature as the rule - they were always understood as the anomaly.

mj
03-03-2005, 06:04 PM
No wonder the big guy felt like punching someone if that is his girlfriend.

He probably only did it to get the jail sentence.

senshincenter
03-03-2005, 06:12 PM
Hilarious - good one.

Charlie
03-03-2005, 08:32 PM
Does anybody know if the pizza is any good? I mean...if it is to die for, well...I gotta get me some of that pie!

:hypno:

maikerus
03-04-2005, 02:47 AM
Hey Larry,

How do these comments compare to the mailing list you pulled the original clip from? Do they go in the same circles...or do they have different ones? :)

Just curious,

--Michael

Dan Herak
03-04-2005, 09:23 AM
There's no call for ab-hominem attacks here. Nor call to respond to them. Let's please keep this civil and argue the points.

This post is tough to swallow. It was the original poster who blatantly blamed the victim for getting beat up. Indeed, he actually did it in several different posts of which I picked one single example. I find it quite disturbing that nobody called him on it and I am not going to apologize for doing so. It is even more troubling that, after somebody blames the victim and does not get called out on it, I am then criticized for my post. Although I will not deny the harshness of my post, it was quite qarranted when one sees such attitudes expressed. Blaming-the-victim is an ugly game and the only way to stop it is not only to challenge the ideas but also the person making it. You say let's argue the points. Fine, show me your original post in which you addressed this issue. If you cannot, then you are criticizing me for addressing it more harshly than you want, when you indeed had an opportunity to express it, but failed to do so.

NixNa
03-04-2005, 09:29 AM
No wonder the big guy felt like punching someone if that is his girlfriend.

He probably only did it to get the jail sentence.

LOL yea probably LOLLLLL... but seriously, wonder wot wld alot of famous m.artists have done in tt kinda situation. Bruce Lee, Steven Seagal, or even O Sensei himself.... :straightf

L. Camejo
03-04-2005, 09:32 AM
Hey Larry,

How do these comments compare to the mailing list you pulled the original clip from? Do they go in the same circles...or do they have different ones? :)

Just curious,


Hi Mike,

Funny you should ask that.:)

This topic is posted on Budoseek.net as well and also has some interesting opinions.

The general premise on the original mailing list was that the subject of the attack lacked awareness of his surroundings and the degree of danger he was in and basically should have taken the opportunity to get out of the place before it escalated to the physical assault. It appeared that the cell phone somehow had him psychologically insulated and distracted from what was going on around him (much like drivers who use cell phones and cause accidents by ignoring their surroundings).

They pretty much agreed that the attacker had come into the pizza parlor intent on beating down somebody from the outset and the cell phone guy got elected. Generally it was agreed that the use of lethal force was not recommended (mainly for legal reasons) since the attacker, though huge, was unarmed, however to survive that encounter one should be prepared to use that level of force (i.e. enter the mindset) but end the conflict as quickly as possible by initiating the attack. The key would be to use extreme, targeted violence in a precise manner that would shock the attacker and end the conflict quickly before he launched his first bomb. Basically let him know he was not the only "killer" in the room so to speak (of course this calls for the requisite mindset and cannot really be faked to someone who already has it). Something I alluded to with my Shomen Ate concept - take him out before he takes you out and LEAVE. Ideally though, folks should have tried to leave the situation during the slight pause between the woman walking to the door and her boyfriend coming in to set it off or even earlier if possible. Escape, escape, escape.:)

One comment on that list was that folks did the typical "social norm restoration" thing where they were mulling around trying to regain psychological balance and a sense of normalcy after they thought the manager had evicted the woman. So they were all caught flat footed when the big man came in ready to rumble and they were trying to return to peace and harmony mode.

It was apparent to these folks, who deal regularly with criminals and that sort, that the boyfriend was accustomed to using his size etc. as intimidation tactics and doing that sort of assuault, which is a very popular method used in prisons for the shock factor. The idea is to shock the entire group by making a quick, devastating "Blitzkrieg" atttack which serves to destroy the target quickly while effectively extinguishing any ideas from the audience to jump in and do anything. It basically does not last long enough for the bystanders to start thinking about the situation and get emotionally riled up enough to do something while at the same time giving them a sample of what they may be in for if they did do something.

The mailing list basically consists of a lot of current and ex-law enforcement and military and a lot of folks who have learnt the principles of real life self defence by being in real life self defence. There are also a few martial artists on there too. Makes for some interesting discussion when the Dojo Darlings meet the Survivors of the Real. evileyes Good thing is they are very good about sharing information and thoughts so that others don't have to repeat their mistakes and get their injuries to learn.

This was part of why I liked this video. In an instant it shows how things can go from zero to WTF? :hypno: and helps us see what the real world looks like a bit, which I hope would act as some sort of aid to that fringe group who may attempt to train their martial art towards effective real life self defence as part of their training.
LC:ai::ki:

Yann Golanski
03-04-2005, 11:07 AM
Wow... Interesting thread and clip. You know, this is kind of why I generally phone for pizza. Much safer to have it delivered at home.

My opinion goes to the "let's get the hell out of here and come back when the psychos are gone". If that involves going into the kitchen, so be it. Awareness is really to blame here. After that, it's dealing with a bad situation. Yuck, not nice at all.

I am somewhat glad that no one used a gun. The whole place would have turned into a blood bath.

Keith_k
03-04-2005, 03:47 PM
I think when we ask "How could this situation have been resolved/avoided" what we are all really asking is "Could I have dealt with this situation without getting my face pounded like that poor guy." We want to know, after spending all that time, effort and money at the dojo, would I have been any different than this schmuck. Personally, I can't say for sure I would have be. Fights are chaotic things, it's impossible to tell the outcome by interjecting myself in the place of the victim.

I think what we should be asking is "what can we learn from this episode about how to deal with real life violence?" I think that the most applicable lesson to be learned here is: be aware of your surroundings. By this I don't just mean don't talk on your cell phone while a 300lb monster is breathing down your neck. I mean, the next time you are waiting in a line or sitting in a restaurant, or spending any amount of time in a public or semi-public place, be aware of where you are, what is around you, how much room you have to maneuver, where the exits are, and how to get to them. One thing I noticed from the video is that the victim never had a chance to run because he was backed into a corner made by the wall and his fellow customers. Diffusing the situation involves an unstable human factor, but simply placing yourself in a spot where you can run, or at least have some room to work if you have to deal with someone physically is something that we can all do and it is not dependent on anyone else's actions or inactions.

jss
03-04-2005, 04:00 PM
Regarding 1) Whenever a situation develops, you've got the choice between escalation and de-escalation--nothing else. If you're a party to the escalation, it's your choice--he made that choice by saying something.
Now, I'm not saying she was right. But he was definitely wrong(this is personal opinion formed out of the belief that the property owner has the right to run the business how he likes without my interference). Again, it's the business owners business. If you don't like people cutting the line, go somewhere else. If every business allows people to cut the line and you don't like it, start your own pizza shop where you'll take care of people who cut the line.
Isn't that a very indirect approach to solving the porblem?
I have trouble believing that the right thing to do in cases as these is standing up for what you believe as your right (being served in the order as you arrived at the pizza parlor) by never buying a pizza there ever again.
And if you say that some women ask to be raped (see further as well), aren't line cutters asking to be set straight? Or do you think that although the line cutter is asking for it, it's not the best thing to give her what she is asking for?

For those who disagree with me, it appears to me, that you have the belief that you have the right to direct the order of someone else's business.
My thought on that is that you subscribe to the same ideology as the line cutter. You have a belief about how things should be run and then you implement them.
You are right about this, great argument.
However, your argument rests on the assumption of consistency. And I for one do not claim to be consistent in words or actions, although most of the time I am. The problem is that consistency assumes a perspective from the outside in which two things, actions, etc. are stripped from their particulars untill they can be compared. That outside perspective is a world in which human life is impossible, we cannot leave our present conidition to ponder about things. My point is that such an outside perspective (needed for your consistency-argument) is irrelevant for actual human life.
So a line cutter cannot be compared to someone saying he/she shouldn't in the way you did. Someone cut the line and someone responded and yes, both are implementing their believes on what should and what shouldn't. But in different contexts: one was breaking a social convention ('first come, first serve') and the other was defending it. And that makes a big difference. (There are other differences, but this is in my opinion the most important one.)

Dan H., I do believe that a woman acting in a certain way is asking for it--in the same way that if I were tap dancing in front of a rattle snake, I'm asking to get bit. It's nature. You can't change that.
We change nature all the time by a means called culture. On the other hand, human culture is a key aspect of being human, so human culture is a form of nature as well.
Nevertheless, I can read your point in two ways:
1) you're being realistic about human nature. Unfortunately, in the right context our higher brain functions have no influence on us whatsoever.
2) you're using the natural = good argument, which is quite flawed. Laying your eggs in a living creature so they can hatch and eat the animal from inside out is natural, but not a good example of what we call the moral good.
I'm guessing you subscribe to 1, but I'm not entirely sure.

DaveO
03-04-2005, 04:31 PM
Hi Mike,

Funny you should ask that.:)

This topic is posted on Budoseek.net as well and also has some interesting opinions.

The general premise on the original mailing list was that the subject of the attack lacked awareness of his surroundings and the degree of danger he was in and basically should have taken the opportunity to get out of the place before it escalated to the physical assault. It appeared that the cell phone somehow had him psychologically insulated and distracted from what was going on around him (much like drivers who use cell phones and cause accidents by ignoring their surroundings).
....

Hi again, Larry. :)

Great response and summary - I was wondering if one of us should put it up on the mailing list we both share - it'd be interesting to see what those folks say about it as well. :)

Adam Alexander
03-04-2005, 06:25 PM
... or that He is both subject and slave to impulses and/or instincts that are akin to the mechanisms behind a rattlesnake's bite...

All that stuff you said is real nice in a dojo or church or some other bubble. In reality, the average person (the great majority) does not practice Aikido. Further, they don't adhere strongly to moral codes when the reward of a decision is strong ego gratification.

I'm sure in a lot of little towns all over the world, people do the "right" thing. But I've never seen it--atleast not when the reward for not doing the right thing is significant.

So, as far as people being like rattlesnakes, it's an analogy which is consistent with my experience.

Further, the veiw that people are rattlesnakes is so wide spread, the US gov. is based on it: capitalism. People are motivated by self interest. What you're talking about seems to dismiss that.


... I find it quite disturbing that nobody called him on it and I am not going to apologize for doing so...

It's not about disagreeing, it's about attacking someone personally instead of rationally disagreeing. Ad Hominem is a term in logic. Whenever you attack someone, it's illogical; meaning that the character of the person is irrelevant to the statement that person made.


Isn't that a very indirect approach to solving the porblem?.

So, correct me if I'm misinterpreting. You're saying,"It's an indirect solution to not financially support a business who's practices are inconsistent with your beliefs?"

If that's a correct interpretation, I say it doesn't matter whether it's direct or indirect. It's the right solution.

Regarding the rest or your post: I like lines. I like order. However, I do not feel that my opinion, whether it's consistent with this culture or not, should be imposed in this fashion (violating the rights of the business owner here. He has the right to run a business that doesn't have respect for lines.)

On the rape stuff, I think I outlined it above.

senshincenter
03-04-2005, 07:53 PM
All that stuff you said is real nice in a dojo or church or some other bubble.

Well to each his own - we don't agree.

However, I think it is important to note that such views are never born in dojo, churches, or some other bubble - places of quarantine. These views come from the pits of human culture - where culture fails most. It's like that - always. Give me a world religion that speaks about the commonality of Man and that was NOT born in the ghetto and you'll win a prize! While these things seem to you to be foreign to reality, I must say that your own view smells to me of the "outsider looking in" or of "middle and/or upper middle class," etc. This is how our views look to each other - because I'm thinking we are coming from different backgrounds.

Believe me, that guy that got whacked and the guy that whacked him were from different backgrounds too. And while the guy that got whacked may have been thinking that he didn't deserve that and/or that he was violated in some way, the guy that whacked him never for a minute pondered over issues of "deserving" and/or of being the great deliverer of some sort of moral street code. After the fact, he was just thinking he "knocked him the 'bleep' out," and then after that he goes on to fight with his woman over what happened and why and what's going to happen next. Notions of who deserved what and why was never anything I came up against where I grew up (i.e. poverty avenue, Pomona, CA) - though I always saw it in Hollywood and/or in the cops that "visited" our neighborhood as part of their job.

In other words,if you are coming up in your experience with some notions of surety and purpose, such as "what is deserved," and that works to explain the true randomness of such violence to you, then we are never going to see eye to eye on this. Where I grew up, that kind of violence (like that) was always random, and that was what was most pressing about it. You either learned to live with it - with that randomness - or you went off the deep-end when any type of "street code" you had miserably failed at making sense of things (as it always will).

In short, while I have my philosophical objections to your position (which would include you seeing that by your own logic you should accept that attacks on you by other posters as something you "deserved" - but that would be silly), your view is too much "Jets vs. Sharks" for me to consider it as the "real" reason why that all went down the way it did (or should).

wxyzabc
03-04-2005, 07:57 PM
Well I just watched the video and honestly think that the poor guy did nothing wrong...the body language of the women clearly showed she wanted to cause trouble. If he hadn`t have said something I reckon one of the others would have and the result would have been the same. The victim (the guy with the phone) didn`t even initially seem to be aware of the huge guy (or perhaps their relationship) so reacted to the women in a way most people would I expect....nb she hit him he never reacted.

There were too many people in a confined space for any serious attempt at aikido unless you`re a seriously advanced practioner..the best he could have done was tried to block....actually falling down (not that he had much choice) was pretty smart....
I reckon this shows that some knowledge of other arts eg. karate is very useful but even so against someone that size all you can do is try to block, perhaps throw a partly disabling kick to some sensitive area and leg it. However I doubt anything would have helped him much.
The guy has my sympathy and I personally lay pretty much all the blame on the women to be honest. Big guy shouldn`t have laid in to him but was put in a position where he either dragged his girlfriend out or "protected" her (even though it was her fault)...sadly he made the wrong decision.

senshincenter
03-04-2005, 08:20 PM
Jean,

Sometimes you walk away and its then that you realize more clearly what you were trying to say...

Here's the test:

1. What if it was your woman that cut in line, what if it was some guy that remarked over your woman cutting in line, would you feel that that guy then deserved to be beat down by you (and actually doing it)?

If you say, "no," then I think you can sort of understand where I and others are coming from. If you say there are considerations that should apply to you (that shouldn't apply to the guy in the video), then I again think you can sort of understand where I and others are coming from. If you say, "Yes, that guy would deserve to get beat down by me in that same exact fashion," then according to your view you would be inflicting some moral street code that we are all supposed to be aware of and share. In my view, you would be out of touch with your own humanity, your own nature, and thus with reality. That would be where we would differ.

2. The same thing can be done with the woman in a short skirt with high heels. If upon seeing a woman dressed in that way, would you feel that she deserved to be rape by you (then raping her)?

If you say, "no," then I think you can sort of understand where I and others are coming from. If you say there are considerations that should apply to you (that shouldn't apply to a rapist), then I again think you can sort of understand where I and others are coming from. If you say, "Yes, that woman would deserve to get raped by me," then according to your view you would be inflicting some sort moral street code that we are all supposed to be aware of and share. In my view, you would be out of touch with your own humanity, your own nature, and thus with reality. That would be where we would differ.

If you are answering "no" to these scenarios, then I really think, as I suggested before, that you do not mean "deserve," but rather you meant to make some sort of commentary on what is "streetwise" and what is not.

creinig
03-05-2005, 05:34 AM
Again, it's the business owners business. If you don't like people cutting the line, go somewhere else. If every business allows people to cut the line and you don't like it, start your own pizza shop where you'll take care of people who cut the line.

I can't see any problem with the shop owner's behaviour. There was no immediate reaction at the start -- at least no visible one. Maybe she said something, maybe she was busy with something else at the time. When the line-cutter got "out of line" (forgive me the pun), she was reprimanded. And then Bubba came in. At that point the store owner had the choice between either (a) getting back behind the counter or (b) seriously risk getting beaten to a pulp herself. I'd say she acted exactly right.

If you want to boycott shops because their owners don't like being hospitalized for you, fine. I think that's a bit excessive though :D

(Note: I don't think you suggest that, so please don't take it personally. I just thought it had to be said, and this seemed like the best place.)

DaveO
03-05-2005, 07:25 AM
Did anyone notice? After it's over the big guy drags his 'victim' about - as though with some purpose in mind - then picks up the 'victim's phone and walks off with it.

Dave Organ wrote:
I suppose its possible - highly doubtful, but possible - that a highly experienced practicioner (Say 8th dan or so) could effectively redirect that shot.

Redirect that? Are you joking? Not even remotlely possible (although part of me would like it to be possible). The average 8th Dan Aikido is usually over 65-70 years old - unless you are referring to some of those 8th Dan+ young guns from the Bad Budo section of E-Budo (not possible for them either). More likely, the 8th Dan Aikido would not get into such a situation in the first place.


Agreed almost completely; especially about the last point, although I would say this is a good demonstration that violence can occur anywhere; regardless of location, intent or outlook. In a case like this; I wouldn't sell aikido completely short; I surmise that one of sufficient skill could possibly do something - I was being rather general in my thought when I said '8th Dan' - I suspect a Yamada or Kashewaya Sensei could deal with the situation; but not many of lesser skill using aikido alone.
:)

George S. Ledyard
03-05-2005, 08:41 AM
This is a total street fight situation. If you think that your Aikido is going to allow you to -re-direct an attack like that with so little room to move... well, it;s not going to happen.

This is a classic go straight toi the center situation. In our defensive tactics training we teach a "ready position" in which you tuck your strong hand under the opposite arm and extend the weaker side hand; keep the palm of the hand towtrds yourself, this is a non-aggressive gesture that looks like suplication. What you have done at this point is get both hands up where they can function to protect you without giving away that you have done so.

The moment the other guy moves you go straight to the center. Given his size you are going for the total incapacitation (also given that he is backed up by the woman who is clearly vicious). We taech a split dive off that type of positioning. The forward hand intercepts the incoming blow while the back hand goes straight to the center, usually delivering a palm strike to the nose. Immediately after the blow is blocked both hands go to the attacker's face whereupon you thumb his eyes, this makes his head go back whereupon you deliver a head butt to the center of his face and cave it, this naturally puts the head back and the groin close so the follow-up is a groin strike designed to bring his head back down where you can finish him with knees to his head until he is unconcious. While all this is happening you are delivering the most frightening kiai of which you are capable.

All of my defensive tactics students are trained in this combo specifically for this type of predatory ambush situation. It is designed to finish the guy with in the first few seconds. Variations include making the first palm strike a hit to the throat or a jab to the eyes and following up the head but with an elbow combination before going to the knee work.

The key to successful application of this type of defense is not being knocked out or subtantially hurt by the first shot. This guy was not capable of mounting an effective defense from his position. Any one of the most common sucker attacks would have worked: the haymaker (the one actually used), the upper cut, the head butt, etc. Some defensive posture the moment the altercation started would be the minimum reuirement for some sort of possible defense. Without that, he was toast before the first blow was struck.

That said, the possibility of further escalation would be very possible if not probable. The caliber of person who acts like the two in the clip doesn't typically walk around defenseless. That's why nothing short of totally nuking the big guy would be acceptable here. he needs to go down right away. Then I think there would be a very good chance of an edged weapon being produced by the female in defense of her male. Bolting for the door would be a proper follow up to putting the big guy on the floor. I can't imagine dealing with a large, armed, female in that closed space.

L. Camejo
03-05-2005, 08:57 AM
Hi again, Larry. :)

Great response and summary - I was wondering if one of us should put it up on the mailing list we both share - it'd be interesting to see what those folks say about it as well. :)

Hi DaveO,

Since it was that mailing list that inspired this thread, I think that there was nothing that they didn't say there that was not said here in some form. As far as my post goes, I merely summarised their views, so I'm not sure if playing back what they already know would make much sense. Unless I missed something regarding exactly what you wanted me to post on the other list.

Listmom is generally busy without superfluous posts imho.:)

As far as the 8th Dan (and comparative level) being the only ones able to redirect the punch goes, I am trying really hard to see if I am missing something that you guys are detecting as regards that first punch in the video. To be quite honest as far as speed, power and intent goes, that beginning punch is not very different to how I attack my higher Kyu graded students with a round/sucker punch (in fact the ones we use allow for much smaller arc than in the video so you have a very short interval in which to detect and respond before being hit), and I'm outweighed by the Big Guy in the video by about 50 or so pounds. The only difference may be that they know it's coming most times in my class, but this is not always the case and most tend to handle things pretty well even when caught unexpected by entering deeply inside the arc of the punch (towards the shoulder of the other hand), and striking the side of the neck while turning and dropping one's weight sharply and holding onto the punching hand and head (without stopping the momentum) to overextend the attacker's balance, bringing the arc of the punch (and the rest of him) straight towards the floor as you come out of the turn. It's a great way of getting out of the corner as well imho by using the turn to help you get behind thae attacker and then out the door. Of course I do not expect the person in the video to do this, but I'm just showing that this basic move is something practiced well before 8th Dan in many dojos (aiki nage is it called by some??). But of course there are other more instinctive and reflexive/reactive aspects that come into play other than the mere technique that are equally important.

We also sometimes operate from the range that the punch occurred in the video as well (in fact it's the best range for that particular response since you have minimal distance to cover in order to get inside since you are already in the hole). But maybe I am missing something that you guys are seeing. There are a few Aikido folks I know from our system that I am sure can handle that punch with a redirection or pre-emptive strike/throw like Shomen Ate and they fall within the 2nd to 4th Dan category. But it is possible that I am missing something, but if not, like I said earlier, it depends on the reason and focus of one's training.

Great posts folks. I like George's response too.
LC:ai::ki:

senshincenter
03-05-2005, 12:16 PM
Some of us folks count all that stuff Mr. Ledyard said as "Aikido." It sounds like good weapons tactics to me, since nothing redirects a strike like dominating the centerline. I think Mr. Camejo is suggesting the same thing with the Shomen-ate.

On a related note, David Humm has a thread going on here on "muto," and Jun had translated some text on what that term meant for one tradition, etc. In that translation, the yin aspect of the sword's strike is stressed as the opening by which one is to determine the proper maai (and thus obtain the primary chance for tactical success). Mr. Humm, I believe, rightly relates this to the yin opening of Shomenuchi when training in Shomenuchi Ikkyo. From my perspective, what Mr. Ledyard has outline above fits in perfectly with this ancient tactic that is still to this day vital to the omote and yang aspects of Aiki.

If I may say, I liked Mr. Ledyard's idea of entering while covering - adopting a kind of "unsophisticated" sophistication in merging one's Angle of Attack with one's Angle of Deflection. Chiba Sensei, as well as my Kenpo instructor, Michael Robert Pick, was all very much of the same position. Art's like the "new" ones coming out of Israel also clearly adopt this tactic. Moreover, I have found it to be something present in nearly every art. You just have to look for it. The tactic has you bracing and covering in order to receive a blow and/to brace yourself for one reason or another. However, it all gets a hell of a lot more sophisticated because you vary the angles of your entry, the angles of your elbows, the timing of your tactics, etc., and though are you covering up for the worst, you are actually attacking or engaging at your best. For me, it is how you apply culture to nature -- how you add fire to raw meat and get a banquet.

Chiba Sensei at times used to demonstrate this to the degree that it almost looked like he was going to tackle his uke when doing Shomenuchi Ikkyo Omote while in Suwari Waza. This was done to make his point: You must be covered when entering. Though I do not have the same exaggeration, since I am only trying to utilize the principle and not emphasize it, you can see a simple example of this idea (engaging while covered) in the following video clip (though no strike is thrown simultaneously, as in Mr. Ledyard's tactic). The linked Aikido Perspective addresses the Yin and Yang of Shomenuchi and its relation to entering and turning in Ikkyo omote and Ikkyo ura while utilizing Aiki. It is extremely long -- but some might find it interesting. Here's the video link (you'll find the link for the article on that page as well).

http://www.senshincenter.com/pages/vids/shomenuchiikkyovideo.html

Something else to note, the attacker had bad knees. It was evident when he walked in the door that he either had bad knees or that the adrenaline had already "built up" in his knees such that they were no longer flexible. Either way, he was forced to waddle from side to side -- because he's knees would not bend to accommodate his gait and/or his weight. That is one of those things you want to be aware of -- right when he entered the door (as someone else brought up the point of being aware of one's environment). With such knees, I'm am not so sure that this person would have been too hard to take off balance and/or even to take down, as we are all suggesting when we just look at his height and/or his weight, if one is ready for him. In addition, once this person fell down or teetered from a push, a strike, and/or an entry, the fallibility of his capacity for combat, and thus the applicability of countless tactics, would have been exposed. When you are that big and have bad knees, you have to forget about trying to regain your balance and/or, worse, getting up from the floor in any kind of way that can remain martially viable. You will be way too slow to recover and it will be all downhill from there. You can see a clear example of the attacker's poor knees and how they are determining his balance when his woman pulls him into an Angle of Disturbance with single wrist grab -- almost mid-punch -- on his T-shirt no less.

DaveO
03-05-2005, 04:52 PM
Wups - that's my fault Larry; I couldn't find it on the List - sorry 'bout that. :) Haven't been able to keep up with it all recently. :)

Adam Alexander
03-05-2005, 05:17 PM
...These views come from the pits of human culture - where culture fails most. It's like that - always. Give me a world religion that speaks about the commonality of Man and that was NOT born in the ghetto and you'll win a prize!

Buddhism. Siddhartha Guatama (spelling?) was a prince. Buddhism was born from an outsider looking into the ghetto.

While these things seem to you to be foreign to reality, I must say that your own view smells to me of the "outsider looking in" or of "middle and/or upper middle class," etc. This is how our views look to each other - because I'm thinking we are coming from different backgrounds.

Only if you're from the middle/upper class. I was raised just outside of Detroit, MI and spent most of my teenage years in the city with a gang.

...the guy that whacked him never for a minute pondered over issues of "deserving" and/or of being the great deliverer of some sort of moral street code...

Now you're catching what I'm saying...He didn't consider codes or morality or some other crap. Just like a rattlesnake--or an average person-- he did what was natural.

...In other words,if you are coming up in your experience with some notions of surety and purpose, such as "what is deserved," and that works to explain the true randomness of such violence to you,

I don't think I'm saying anything about purpose. I say there's a correlation between running your mouth and then getting slapped for it in certain situations.

Sounds to me that you were the one talking about "higher" purpose.

Where I grew up, that kind of violence (like that) was always random, ...

I just don't believe that you can call an act of violence that's preceded by the "victim" running his mouth "random."

A criminal walking up and car-jacking a person for no apparent reason, that's random. Driving through the ghetto in a BMW and sitting at stop signs to smoke a cigarrette, that's asking for it.

...you should accept that attacks on you by other posters as something you "deserved" - but that would be silly), your view is too much "Jets vs. Sharks" for me to consider it as the "real" reason why that all went down the way it did (or should).

For the sake of ending this conversation, I'd prefer saying "it was asked for."

As far as the "real" reason you speak of, I think you're saying,"the only reason." I'm not saying that the only reason that this happened is that the "victim" ran his mouth. Sure the attacker could of just lost his job. He could of been very hungry and highly irritable. He could of been raised in a bad home. You get the idea. I'm just saying, if the "victim" would of minded his own business, there's no apparent reason that this would of happened to him.

senshincenter
03-05-2005, 05:22 PM
When the Buddha was a prince, he was no Buddha. When he saw the commonality of all things - or however you would like to word that - he was poorer than poor.

I think your last paragraph is something I can agree with - a place that we can share in common.

Thanks for your input.

Adam Alexander
03-05-2005, 05:44 PM
1. What if it was your woman that cut in line, what if it was some guy that remarked over your woman cutting in line, would you feel that that guy then deserved to be beat down by you (and actually doing it)?

Absolutely not. I wouldn't react like that. There's just no need for it. However, because I live by a certain code doesn't mean I expect others (the attacker and the average person) to live by it. I know how people are and accept it.

You also said that because I wouldn't react that way, I should be able to understand why you and some others are so bothered by what happened. I do understand why you feel that way. However, not because I don't think the guy should of gotten beat up.


2. The same thing can be done with the woman in a short skirt with high heels. If upon seeing a woman dressed in that way, would you feel that she deserved to be rape by you (then raping her)?

Deserve has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't do it. However, again, I live by a different standard. But, if she was raped, I'd say you shouldn't tap dance in front of a rattle snakes.


If you are answering "no" to these scenarios, then I really think, as I suggested before, that you do not mean "deserve," but rather you meant to make some sort of commentary on what is "streetwise" and what is not.

I think "they were asking for it" does a better job of expressing my view than being "streetwise."

In a "streetwise" situation, you accept that the world can be a dangerous place. In the situations you describe, I think these people choose to believe that there's no need to worry about their effect on others.

SmilingNage
03-06-2005, 07:26 AM
Part of this really boils down to being responsible for what you say. You may have the "right" to free speech, but if no one is around to "protect" that right, keep you mouth shut. I dont think anyone would have thought that this would have occurred by saying "i guess its going to take longer to get a pizza now" but this is the ignition point of this event. Being a smart A. and uttering passive aggressive statements is what caused this guys problems.

Above all things, keeping his mouth shut would have prevented this. No mouthy off, no get beaty up.

ronin_10562
03-06-2005, 08:09 AM
I am amazed that some posters blame the victim. Verbally pointing out that someone is acting improperly is the correct action, that also takes a certain amount of courage. All of the witness should have spoken out and if they had nothing would have happened. The only error that the victim made was that he was not prepared to defend himself the moment the attacker entered the room.

Shame on those that blame the victim.

Mary Eastland
03-06-2005, 08:15 AM
Ok......................here goes.

Your woman???????????? Does that mean you own her ?????

I can't even respond to the high heels and short skirt thing. It is too medieval. Men are not rattlesnakes. They are human beings. They can reason. Rape is violence not sex.



Mary

ronin_10562
03-06-2005, 08:23 AM
Be careful Mary, you are pointing out improper behavior. Some posters believe that you are asking for it.

senshincenter
03-06-2005, 10:12 AM
If anything, I would say the "your" operates in the other way - at least how I was using it. This kind of "your" is the same "your" as in "your man," "your significant other," "your boyfriend," "your girlfriend," "your friend," "your partner," etc. It does not mark ownership but rather that you are "owing" to someone else because they are a part of you.

But anyways, thanks for pushing that to the front Mary.

d

Talon
03-06-2005, 10:24 AM
Personally I don't think that the victim instigated the attack at all. He did what alot of us would have done if someone cut in line like that. He should not be blamed for this for saying that now he will have to wait even londer. Now what could have been done to not get your face pounded in this situation. Well in my oppinion as someone else has mentioned, something had to be done as soon as the attacker(s) entered the safe distance (maai). As soon as the woman entered that close waving her hand around and slapping she could have been neutralized with a simple ikkyo or nikkio tequnique.

As far as the big guy. Well as soon as he entgered that close there should have been an instant ateme, two or three with movement, then when he was distracted and the tori was off line of atack a proper tequnique could have been done. If you let an attacker that big get that close to you without doing anything to distract him and get offline of his possible attack, youre bound to get pounded like the victim did.

I'm not saying that the ateme should knock a monster like that out, but it should easily distract him for a moment such that you can get off line and in position to do something more usefull than just standing there and geing your face pounded in.

Moral of the story....Treat the attacker with respect, assume he will attack you and do the pre-emptive thing if he/she brakes the maai. Oh yea one more thing. GET OFF THE CELL PHONE! This guy has KING KONG in his face ready to flatten his face and he's not showing enough respect to get off the phone and pay attention to the threat in front of him? Again I'm not blaiming the victim but hopefully a trained person would not make such basic mistakes and saved his ass.

Mary Eastland
03-06-2005, 11:57 AM
If anything, I would say the "your" operates in the other way - at least how I was using it. This kind of "your" is the same "your" as in "your man," "your significant other," "your boyfriend," "your girlfriend," "your friend," "your partner," etc. It does not mark ownership but rather that you are "owing" to someone else because they are a part of you.

But anyways, thanks for pushing that to the front Mary.

d
Anytime. :)

I thought about that after I wrote it.

Mary

Adam Alexander
03-06-2005, 03:53 PM
You folks can talk all day about a world where people shouldn't get smacked around for running their mouths. But at the end of the day, that guy was nursing a whole lot of hurt and next time I bet he thinks twice about running his mouth--and that's what really counts--people living in their bubbles got a little glimpse of what might happen when they run their mouths.

As far as the guy getting sentenced, when he gets out in a year on parole, he'll be that much meaner and less fearful of prison because he's already faced it.

Look out folks, the world's a nasty place and people get what they ask for--even if they don't realize they're asking.

Ron Tisdale
03-06-2005, 04:24 PM
What's really scary is that if that guy recovers and is in a situation where his actions could help someone else, he will most likely remember this beatdown, and do nothing.

I don't think I want to live in a world where we blame the victim...even if the victim is somewhat stupid.

Ron

Adam Alexander
03-06-2005, 04:58 PM
What does "blame" mean?

wxyzabc
03-06-2005, 06:02 PM
Some people are talking about "neutralising" the big guy prior to him attacking. How does this stand in SD terms if you threw the first punch. You could argue I suppose that from the video it was never 100% certain the big guy would actually kick off until he did. If you applied a technique to the women on the basis of her slapping you and then went straight for the big guy, couldn`t you find yourself liable?

Lee
p.s. sure better than being beaten senseless yourself but where does the law stand on this?

Talon
03-06-2005, 06:21 PM
I wasn't suggesting braking limbs, maiming or braking jaws. I was suggesting an ateme to distract and a neutralizing technique in order to be able to get out of there without getting pounded on. I don't think you'll have troubles withthe law if you don't really hurt someone and can prove that you were defendingb yourself while outnumbered and outweighed.

mj
03-06-2005, 06:28 PM
The trouble is that there was no-one brave enough.

A crowd that is docile can just as easily become the crowd that burns books, or crucifies or becomes a mob or becomes 12 disciples. The silent crowd looking away is no different from everyone telling you 'you deserve it'.

The crowd was controlled by the big scary guy (and before that his loud /looking for trouble/aggressive girlfriend who I hope is getting jail-time too) and there was no-one brave enough to take that away from him, her or them. The guy who got beaten up was also beaten up by knowing no-one would help.

Even worse than the guy who got beat up...I would be more ashamed to be someone there who did not.... a shocking display.

wxyzabc
03-06-2005, 06:33 PM
Thanks Paul

I know, but others have talked about things like head butts and groin attacks which are potentially more damaging...would that be ok if you "think" you`re about to be attacked? do the rules of SD change for different countries...is the UK different from the States for example.

People study Aikido and other martial arts for other reasons than purely SD, but it would be nice to think that if it was necessary to use MA in such a situation, that you wouldn`t find yourself facing a prison sentence if you did break bones etc when maybe there was no video footage to examine.

Lee

George S. Ledyard
03-06-2005, 07:32 PM
Some people are talking about "neutralising" the big guy prior to him attacking. How does this stand in SD terms if you threw the first punch. You could argue I suppose that from the video it was never 100% certain the big guy would actually kick off until he did. If you applied a technique to the women on the basis of her slapping you and then went straight for the big guy, couldn`t you find yourself liable?

Lee
p.s. sure better than being beaten senseless yourself but where does the law stand on this?

You do not have to wait to be hit in order to use force to defend yourself. it is the "perceived threat" that determines whether you can or not.However one additional factor comes into play and that is the issue of "preclusion". Was there any "reasonable" action you could have done in order to preclude the encounter? In other words, could you have run away? Did you try to use verbal means to dissuade the attacker or did you particpate in the conflict verbally and therefore have some responsibility for getting it started.In this case there was no effective line of retreat. The guy was cut off from the outside exit by the attackers. Any "reasonable" person watching that film could see the threat, therefore he would have come out ok in court as long as he acted only to remove the threat and not to punish. But the guy initially didn't back down or offer an apology or in any way try to defuse the situation so a witness might be less sympathetic just as many of the folks here are less than supportive. If he is deemed to have been a factor in the start of the fight he negates the fact that the level of force used was approriate to the threat. Then he's in trouble again.

dan guthrie
03-06-2005, 07:32 PM
One thing this video shares with the video at the rock concert (Danzig?). The first punch was right-handed and the whole body was behind it.
I don't know if this means anything except that we've got two street examples where the aggressor didn't use a weak side jab and didn't pull his fist back after the punch. If the victim had dodged - the punch would have left the aggressor off balance, just like in class.

Talon
03-06-2005, 08:59 PM
Yes both videos definitelly showed that, however the punches were relatively fast for someone who was not expecting one. It may not look all that fast to all of us watching the video over and over but I'm sure it appeared lightning fast to the guy who did'nt know it was coming. I mean yes they look slow to us at this time but when youre stunned by the situation to begin with, it may not be all that slow to you at that time.

In any event, the best thing is not to get into a situation like that to begin with but personally, I'm not sure I would remain quiet if I was waiting in line and someone butted in. So I guess to all on here that blamed the victim, I would have been asking for it too.

It's nice to see that real street attacks are more in line with what we train than many tend to believe. However during our training with yokomen uchi and haymaker attacks we found that the two are quite different. Both of the attacks in those videos were haymakers and I believe we should all practice haymaker defence not just yokomen uchi strike defence.

senshincenter
03-06-2005, 09:11 PM
...people living in their bubbles got a little glimpse of what might happen when they run their mouths.

Jean, I think your posts are the most enlightening when you stick to using words like "might" - where you talk about what is possible and not what is absolute and a mere matter of cause and effect. Unfortunately, many of your posts here make use of the latter voice and not the former.

When folks use the word "bubble" to describe another point of view, they are often trying to note how such a view is only true within a specific and/or limited environment - and thereby for the most part false. That said, I think it is totally inaccurate to denote the environment where folks comment upon infractions over commonly accepted conventions and NOT get beat down as the "bubble." In truth, this is the popular position and/or the environment most folks all over the world live in. Statistically, it's not even close if you compare how many folks live in an environments where they can speak up over cultural assumptions regarding cues (without getting beat down) to the number of folks that live in environments where doing so leads and/or possibly leads to a beating. If one of these environments is the bubble, if we want to associate the "bubble" with what is experienced by only an insignificant number and/or by a statistical anomaly, then it's got to be linked with what you are saying Jean.

New, but related, topic: I think a good book to read on this - in hopes of seeing where the real bubble lies - is "The Culture of Fear." I personally think it is a must read for any martial artist - whatever your slant - but especially if you are an American.

Nikopol
03-07-2005, 12:01 AM
You know, I must be pretty good at getting out of trouble.
I hope I wouldn't have been yacking on the phone and trying to ignore the woman, but when I saw the situation I would have gotten out of I am almost certain to say.

I would have given the guy a blinding Bruce Lee roundhouse kick to the head with a loud 'Heeeeyaaa-a-a-a-a-a' ....

....and then the ObiWan Kenobi would have stepped out behind the counter, sliced off the woman's arm with a light saber as Starsky and Hutch raced in to handcuff them to the radiator till Spiderman and the Hulk arrive.

No. Being from New York, I know one thing; that is: display sombre reconcilitory body language, and plan to walk away if at all possible.

'Nevermind, I apologize; Goodnight' is one that often works with palms held up to display that you are unarmed. You start walking and they might be happy enough to have your place in line. I'm outta here. Worse that might have happened is the woman would have screamed after you, "that's right you take your lame white ass home cause you aint gettin no pizza either!" Old saying of mine "Never rear your ugly head till trouble rears it's".

The poster who suggests a diversion such as going nuts, breaking furniture, starting an argument with the guy next to you is right on. The agressors are not that quick mentally and you could take them by surprise. They might even have a good laugh at the crazy white guy. But in general I would have quickly made amends. The key is when the woman is bumping him. He has an opportunity to get smacked a few times by her, then it would end, the boyfriend might have slapped him once for good measure on his way out.

Or a good approach would have been to run around behind the boyfriend and say to him... "save me save me.. she's gonna kill me, man!"

As for bystanders, luck of the draw but there are certain people who could have spoken up... "Aw, Leave him, he's had enough" but unfortunately no-one with that sort of impartial social authority was waiting for a pizza that night.

Huker
03-07-2005, 12:24 AM
I don't understand a lot of the logic on this thread. Most blame the cell phone guy for shooting his mouth off, but the woman did cut in line and then started making it out to be an injustice when someone called her on it. Some people are just too sub-human. If I hadn't said the same thing as the phone guy, I would have at least been tempted. We talk about him disrespecting her, but she openly disrespected everyone in the line by cutting. Cutting, yeah fine. She's an ***hole who cuts. But then she starts getting in everyone's face and yelling? What the hell is that? Man, at least someone in this world has the stones to openly tell someone to shut up when they're being a jerk. Its this kind of passivity that is letting the ***holes win.
What's this about him not backing up his own toughness after that giant walked in? Yeah the phone guy calmed down a little, but he had no idea Mr. 300 was there. So now he's outnumbered and one of his opponents is enormous. He made some bad decisions here in terms of self defense, but I wouldn't say at all that he wasn't tough enough to back up his words because of that. There is a limit on how far the phone guy should take things. Shutting up right then and thinking about where this was going was a good idea at that point. Even if he did have the know-how to take this guy out, where would it have ended? Him running away after knocking his opponent down? No. He's got to back himself up, right? What, beat him? Kill him? Where is tough enough? At what point has he sufficiently backed up his comment about her cutting in line? Its just pizza, people. Things escalated to the point of disaster, but there was no reason it should have gotten violent, other than to shut that lady up somehow (sorry I hate people like that).
A good palm strike would take pretty much anyone out. I wouldn't recommend hitting him in the stomach, but a face is a face. Broken noses still make the eyes water (and then there's always the eyes themselves...come on, we don't always have to be nice). If the first one didn't knock him down, give him another one. Then just push him over or take his knees. Its hard to hold up 300lbs of bulk on one shaky leg. This is just me coaching though. I wasn't there and I weigh less than 1/2 of what he did. But, life or death, me or him, I'd have probably tried something along those lines. Redirecting power would have been a little tough in there with that guy.

Ah, I could rant forever on this one, but then its just another rant about the stupid people in the world. Waste of time.

wxyzabc
03-07-2005, 12:36 AM
"The poster who suggests a diversion such as going nuts, breaking furniture, starting an argument with the guy next to you is right on. The agressors are not that quick mentally and you could take them by surprise. "

spot on I reckon....I`ve walked away from a similar situation by doing the crazy act...threatening to pound someone seriously bigger than you is the last thing they expect :D ...first sign of weakness and its all over if you dont have the training to defend yourself...

Lee
p.s. many thanks George for the informative reply :)

wxyzabc
03-07-2005, 12:57 AM
mmm.... actually ran away is probably more accurate :D

Rupert Atkinson
03-07-2005, 01:01 AM
So, what have I learned from all the above? Well, I tend to be fairly passive. So, next time someone pushes in front of me in the same situation, I'll disregard most of the above negative vibes and say,

"I guess its going to take longer to get a pizza now."

I actually think that is quite a good response. Far better than the boring, "Excuse me - do you realise there is a queue? (when you know, of course, that they do indeed know there is a queue).

The chances of a big guy coming at me like that are slim, but now, in light of the above, perhaps I will be ready. We are all molded by experience are we not: One man's misfortune can become another's experience.

Nikopol
03-07-2005, 03:05 AM
One other point is that there is no justification for striking the boyfriend, who is a victim of the confusion his girlfriend has wantonly set up. Add to that the notion that you shouldn't touch the woman, and the only thing important here is to diffuse the situation and avoid personal injury. Talk or Walk. Make friends or make tracks. There's no fight here.

By the way, the woman is screaming to the manager, 'Do you hear what he's saying..' so I believe he was saying something to his fiancee on the phone like, "No, no, there's this fat loudmouth here trying to get in the line and......"

Good argument that cellphones cause brain damage.
Another person would have said. "Ok If it means so much to you, go ahead..." Same net effect; it makes the statement concerning manners.

SmilingNage
03-07-2005, 09:01 AM
The guy needs to see his part in the whole ordeal. His passive aggressive comments sent an already unstable person over the edge. This wasn't a random act, his snide remark provided the catalyst. Instead of providing a more direct and constructive statement, such as "Excuse me,The line starts back here", cell phone guy chose to be annoying,and indirect. I think what he said was meant to embarrass the woman. Even if it were in just, you never know how people are going to take it. His comment did little to help the situation. It just added to the problems. Crowded pizza place, orders taking abit longer to fill, woman cuts, then he adds the smart A. remark. Cell phone guy just added fuel to the fire. He did play a role in his own beating. Plain and simple. So what, if it would have taken 10 mins more to get his pizza.

Confucius say "better to eat cold pizza then to get lumped up."

Would have, could have, I am not one for second guessing, but here is my take.

Had Mr. ,should have kept his mouth shut, cell phone guy directed his displeasure with the owner for the cutting incident. It would have been the pizza shop owners responsibility to correct the problem. But even thats not for certain. The woman just could have been looking for a problem. Had he needed the reason to speak up, bring it up with the owner. Or deal with the woman with abit more cautious reserve and remind her the line started back where he was.

What happened wasn't right. Certainly physical violence is never the answer. Nobody deserves to be beaten for speaking up. But in the same token, cell phone guy did play a role. This isn't about blaming, its about seeing the factors that lead to this conclusion, and understanding the roles played in the event.

Had he been quiet, none of this would have happened.
Had he been more direct, and constructive with the woman. It MAY have been prevented but not for certain.
Had he addressed the pizza shop owner and let him deal with the "cutter" It may have been averted, but not for certain.


BTW,
"Be careful Mary, you are pointing out improper behavior. Some posters believe that you are asking for it."

This is what I am talking about Walt, you dont know me, but yet one could construe that you are mocking me. Instead of just saying I don't agree with you Bill and the other posters. You throw out this very same statement that started what happened to cell phone guy. Its short sighted and a un-thought out remark. You never know just how other people, in particular, people you don't know will take what you are saying.

Talon
03-07-2005, 09:47 AM
Do you some of you guys have information that the rest of us did not see in the videotape or is all fo this speculation? How do we really know what the cell phone guy said to the lady? the first notion was that he said "Oh great it will take even longer now" the second version is along the lines of " This fat B%#$ cut in the line" . Which one is correct?

If we're speculating lets just STOP right here because now we're making up the story to go along with this incident and whatever conclusions or oppinions we generate will be false and fictional.

If the guy on the cell phone was rude is one thing but from the video I can't see or hear anything unreasonable that he did to instigate the incident. So why are we shifting part or all of the blame on him again?

L. Camejo
03-07-2005, 11:04 AM
I think William hit the nail on the head with his last post for many of those who indicate the Cell phone guy's "part" in the proceedings. I don't think many were trying to lay blame on Mr. Cell Phone, but just to indicate the various factors that resulted in the incident at the end.

It's all causality imho. For example:

1) You cut in front someone in a line, you are liable to be corrected in some form or fashion - how this is done decides what happens next based on a few other variables.

2) You are standing in a line and someone cuts in front of you - you have a few options of how to deal with the situation, the method you choose has an effect on what happens next.

Had the Cell phone guy not been so insulated from his immediate reality he may have realised that the woman was irate before she even entered the place, was unbalanced enough to be actively looking for conflict with someone and he may also have realised that it was no coincidence that the big guy came in as soon as she went for the door after the incident with the Manager (the manager saw the relationship between them when arguing with the woman, he made an about face for the counter as soon as the big guy came in). So as indicated before Mr. Cell Phone's lack of awareness was the main issue. He is not to be blamed imho for what happened to him, but he did play a role in the result. I think William summed it up nicely here -
Instead of providing a more direct and constructive statement, such as "Excuse me,The line starts back here", cell phone guy chose to be annoying,and indirect. I think what he said was meant to embarrass the woman. Even if it were in just, you never know how people are going to take it. His comment did little to help the situation.

Also, there are a lot of follow up news reports (http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4213293/detail.html) with the edited version of what happened available online. From my understanding the big guy was an ex-convict so it was not like he was unaccustomed to this typical prison type Blitzkrieg attack (which is what he did for those in the know). I also do not believe he was innocent in what happened, I think he took the opportunity of his female friend's rage to explode on someone. It just so happened that Mr. Cell Phone was selected. His little statement, which may have passed unnoticed on any other day by anyone else, was enough to light the dynamite on this situation. It was just a poor judgement call imho.

On the point of awareness, I can't count how many situations I personally know of where people got on the wrong end of physical encounters of assault or abuse when they tried to "set things right", having initially underestimated the degree of resistance they were dealing with. A well known martial artist in this country died via gunshot in a robbery for this sort of misjudgement of a situation. Cell phone guy thought he only had to deal with the irate woman and started to argue with her when he should have started making for the door (if he hadn't left already). He should have taken a quick look around, at which time he would have seen the man mountain standing behind her which as the Manager realised, was no coincidence. I honestly think Cell Phone guy just was not there mentally and made some really bad decisions.

But on the bright side he will be $25,000 richer soon (http://www.newsnet5.com/crimestoppers/4215140/detail.html). Not trying to protect himself will help his case immensely. He should have sued for more though.:)

Hell of a thing when violence breaks through the psychological bubble created by our protective societal norms and conventions and our "social contract" with each other. I guess this is why folks who live daily on the pointy edge of things tend to be labelled as paranoid when in fact they see every day what so-called "human beings" are capable of. I think it's good to remember that there can be a harsh, brutal reality hiding behind all the layers of laws, conventions, society and civilisation we try to put up. It may help us realise a millisecond sooner that it's time to "run like hell" instead of hoping that the societal structure of civil behaviour will always be there to save us.

Just some thoughts.
LC:ai::ki:

mctaylor
03-07-2005, 05:01 PM
Along with everyone else, these are just my personal opinions and I am certainly not attempting to step on toes.

I have to disagree with some of the posts by Jean de Rochefort.

At one point, early on, you had mentioned you would not get involved because you believe in individuals minding their own business. I can think of MANY reasons to not get involved, but that ranks very low. The complacency in this society is becoming embarrassing. For the sake of argument, say that the attacker gave a quick jab to the nose or lip or abdomen and then things ended. Not many of us would argue with your points nearly as much.
Then take it to the other extreme- what if the victim had ended up dead? Is "minding your own business" still apply? Should we, as a society, stand around while a guy gets beat to death by a 300# intellectually challenged bully?

I would also disagree that the attacker acted "natually". It seems a little pessimistic to call this natural or acceptable. How is it "natural" to get pummeled because you're unhappy about someone budging in line. What the attacker did in this case is NOT a natural act by any definition. IMHO, it is generally accepted that we don't budge in line and the owner can run his business however he likes, but the rules of morality and common sense have to supercede at some point.

Again, I respect your opinions and respect the fact that you are obviously much more confident in your martial arts abilities than I am--I would have fallen over and acted like I was having a seizure!

I apologize in advance if I misinterpreted your posts or if I read into them--I commonly read into things more than I should! :D

MT

James Finley
03-07-2005, 06:20 PM
One thing that needs to be mentioned is that during an interview on Fox News, the victim stated that he has since learned that Ohio has no "good samaritan" laws which legally protect bystanders who, acting in good faith, come to the aid of others (in self defense, rendering first-aid, etc.).

I was somewhat surprised by this fact. In this era of civil litigation, I would think that all states would pass such laws if they really want people to intervene. Of course, this immunity would do nothing if the bystanders were too scared or otherwise physically unprepared to act.

James.

Erik
03-07-2005, 08:43 PM
But on the bright side he will be $25,000 richer soon (http://www.newsnet5.com/crimestoppers/4215140/detail.html). Not trying to protect himself will help his case immensely. He should have sued for more though.:)

Am I the only one who suspects that money will be damn hard to collect? The type of person who does this type of thing isn't the sort to have that kind of cash laying around. Add in prison time, lawyer fees and it's almost not worth suing.

On the point of awareness, I can't count how many situations I personally know of where people got on the wrong end of physical encounters of assault or abuse when they tried to "set things right", having initially underestimated the degree of resistance they were dealing with. A well known martial artist in this country died via gunshot in a robbery for this sort of misjudgement of a situation.

I forget the names but a sandan aikidoist was knifed to death by a teenager whom he confronted in his car. The kid was trying to steal his radio or something. I believe this was back in the 70's in New York. Fred Little, if he's reading or cares, could probably provide details.

George S. Ledyard
03-08-2005, 03:33 AM
Do you some of you guys have information that the rest of us did not see in the videotape or is all fo this speculation? How do we really know what the cell phone guy said to the lady? the first notion was that he said "Oh great it will take even longer now" the second version is along the lines of " This fat B%#$ cut in the line" . Which one is correct?

If we're speculating lets just STOP right here because now we're making up the story to go along with this incident and whatever conclusions or oppinions we generate will be false and fictional.

If the guy on the cell phone was rude is one thing but from the video I can't see or hear anything unreasonable that he did to instigate the incident. So why are we shifting part or all of the blame on him again?


People need to separate what is esentially a matter of judgement and what is a legal issue. Whatever the guy said, however he said it, to whomever he said it to, it's illegal to use any kind of force against him. You do not get to nuke somebody just cause they dissed you. Period. Since cell phone guy offered no threat to either the women or the man in question they are both guilty of assault wit the guy probably guilty of aggravated assualt) depends on the state law). He would have been justified in using pretty much any level of force (empty hand) to stop the threat, especially after he took that first hit and the attacker kept beating him. At that point he probably could have accessed a weapon and been justified as long as he used it only to the degree necessary to stop the threat.

The definition of deadly force is that it has a liklihood of creating lasting or permanent serious bodily harm. A sustained beating by a three hundred pound assailant is definitely a deadly force situation. He could have sustained permanent neurological damage, been permanently disfigured etc. All of this is by definition deadly force.

mathewjgano
03-08-2005, 07:41 AM
This is certainly a tough situation...small quarters filled with innocent people, and some very incited energy going on. Ultimately I think knowing what was said is somewhat moot. Yes it's best not to throw fuel on a fire...it's best not to ever say anything negative to anyone you don't know, fankly, because you don't know what's going through their mind to begin with. Some people simply love to fight and it's what they practically live for.
The first mistake I saw was getting in the womans face with her obviously large boy-friend in the room. Second mistake was looking away once he realized the man meant business. The man pulled his fist back a bit before launching it forward. Perhaps the man could have done something with that short instant of information, but he removed that option from himself by cowering and looking away.
Either way, be nice to the a**holes in the world...they need it more than the nice-guys do.

mathewjgano
03-08-2005, 08:03 AM
If the guy on the cell phone was rude is one thing but from the video I can't see or hear anything unreasonable that he did to instigate the incident. So why are we shifting part or all of the blame on him again?

I hope I don't sound at all cruel, because I sympathize with the victim, but it is the responsibility of every individual to take care of themselves. You cannot trust that a group of people will help you even if they can. It's easy to sit back and pick apart the event from a computer screen, but the bottom line is there are people who will kill you for fun, let alone beat you up because their girlfriend wants them to. It's a cruel world and people who don't respect that fact enough do get hurt quicker than those who don't.

henry brown
03-08-2005, 04:55 PM
My vote goes for being unaware of your environment:

The pizza parlor itself looks pretty sleazy. I would guess that the neighborhood it's located in is not very well off. I've been to Akron, and it's pretty depressed in general. So, violence in this neighborhood may not be that uncommon - - you should ask, why is there a video camera monitoring this fight? How many fast food places do you go to have video monitoring?

For me, the last time I was in a place likke the pizza parlor was in the 1980's when I lived near Chicago's South SIde (in Hyde Park around U of Chicago). You definitely treaded carefully when you were in places like this. [The workers did there jobs behind bang glass several inches thick, and the manager wore a gun, and the food came out through a lazy susan kind of thing.] Perhaps the blame should be placed on cell phones! If an aggressive large woman started after me in that (or any other environment), I would have tried to defuse her violence as much as possible verbally, or try to escape (although I hope she would have been going after someone else to begin with). She is psychotic, just itching to tangle with someone, and the boyfriend is her pitbull. The victim makes the mistake of trying meet her obvious aggression with his own.

When the boyfriend gets involved, the victim is already backed up against the wall, and the first hit stuns him. His attempt to get out of the place is pretty half-hearted, but he's probably already only partially conscious by then.

Bad things and violence can happen anywhere, but it is more likely to happen in certain areas. Sometimes you can't avoid them, but you need to be aware of what can happen. I'm sure that if the boyfriend had started hitting me that I would have lost badly, regardless of any expertise I might claim. You need to stop the fight before it happens.

mathewjgano
03-08-2005, 05:55 PM
It's a cruel world and people who don't respect that fact enough do get hurt quicker than those who don't.
oopsy daisy...should read: "...get hurt quicker than those who do."

Nikopol
03-08-2005, 11:59 PM
BTW,
"Be careful Mary, you are pointing out improper behavior. Some posters believe that you are asking for it."

This is what I am talking about Walt, you dont know me, but yet one could construe that you are mocking me. Instead of just saying I don't agree with you Bill and the other posters. You throw out this very same statement that started what happened to cell phone guy. Its short sighted and a un-thought out remark. You never know just how other people, in particular, people you don't know will take what you are saying.

Are you gonna beat him up now? Walt Duck!

Hardware
03-09-2005, 01:07 AM
I'm bummed out because the stupid video won't play... :(

ronin_10562
03-09-2005, 05:19 AM
“This is what I am talking about Walt, you don’t know me, but yet one could construe that you are mocking me. Instead of just saying I don't agree with you Bill and the other posters. You throw out this very same statement that started what happened to cell phone guy. Its shortsighted and an un-thought out remark. You never know just how other people; in particular, people you don't know will take what you are saying.”

Any person can become violent if they feel the need. For some it takes very little provocation and others a lot. I understand that fact of life, and deal with people accordingly. When I wrote

"Be careful Mary, you are pointing out improper behavior. Some posters believe that you are asking for it."

It was a sincere warning to her and to demonstrate the weakness of your point. She disagreed with what a poster wrote and she let them know. Perhaps in a nicer way then the guy that got beat up but it was the same action. They both demonstrated their disapproval of a person’s uncivilized behavior. A person hearing her remark could have reacted violently if he was the type that is easily provoked. Would you blame her for getting beat up? That is what you are arguing. Blame the victim.

L. Camejo
03-09-2005, 09:08 AM
I think in all things there is cause and effect, an interaction of energies, ideas, concepts, people etc. to bring about any result.

In one of my self defence courses a female student asked me how would she do some of the techniques while wearing her mini skirt and high heels with her hair well done. I indicated to her that if one is wearing such clothing then it may be best to avoid obvious situations where she may require protecting herself from attack, and have some ready protection (such as a group of friends who can protect her) for the not so obvious situations. Alternatively one may be able to dress in a manner where at least it is easier to run if attacked by someone, iow finding a balance between looking good and facilitating something else, such as the ability to escape a potential situation. It depends on one's priority, each choice has its pros and cons. Of course the next statement would be that she has a right to wear what she wants to, where she wants to - and she does. The problem with our rights and exercising them without proper judgement of our circumstances is that in our attempt at exercising our righteousness we may instigate or create favourable conditions for conflict depending on the circumstances of the situation. So in a sense "showing the other person that you are right" may not always be the right thing to do at the time.

Cell phone guy was very right and within his rights to address the woman's attempt at breaking the line and causing chaos. He stood up for his rights, but therein lies his contribution to the conflict, not that he is to blame for the other's behaviour, but an explosive does not detonate unless someone starts the detonation process, and this can be done all by oneself or by someone else. The manner in which Cell Phone guy dealt with the woman made him a bigger target to her aggression instead of helping to diffuse the situation. He used a comment that attempted to attack the pride of the woman, to make her feel ashamed at her behaviour and stop her action of breaking the line by succumbing to the social norm of joining the end of the queue. Had he worded his comments differently, or used a different tactic to get her to the back of the line, then the situation may never have happened, or at least he may not have been the preferred target. Another option he could have used could have been having the manager address the issue directly with the woman instead of becoming involved directly, or use a different approach in speaking directly to the woman in a calm tone to help her to move to the back of the line.

Now the fact is he may still fail at verbal persuasion, at this point he makes a choice whether he wants to escalate the situation to something more (maybe physical prompting) or simply let it go, since the next level of action may involve additional aspects which may end up costing more than just waiting a few extra minutes for his pizza (such as the BF coming in and knocking him out). The fact is he should have simply addressed the manager directly regarding the fact that he was there first when the line moved forward, so his order will still be taken, regardless of his physical position in the line after the woman broke it. At this point it is up to the manager to make the choice.

So I reiterate, it's not about "blaming the victim". It is nice and convenient to use the phrase to try and explain what some are saying, but it is not about blame, it is about the variety of responses to certain situations and choosing the most effective response in an attempt to restore the harmony of the situation. The reason for the recommendation of physical techniques and tactics was because the situation was allowed to escalate, if it had not, we would be recommending other strategies.

Whether we realise it or not, what we say and do does have an effect on those around us. The more aware we are of exactly what effect that may have on different characters, emotional levels, primal instinctive tendencies etc., the better we are at applying the right technique in the right situation, whether physical or otherwise.

Remember, because something is the right thing to say/do, does not mean that it is the right thing to say/do at the time depending on your ultimate objective.
LC:ai::ki:

sanskara
03-09-2005, 06:16 PM
What would YOU do as a bystander?
Ron

I would have pulled my gun, told him to stop, and killed him if he didn't. I don't tolerate that shit in my neighborhood, and believe that those of us who have the power to enact positive change (yes, I really said that) have an obligation to do so. Four years in prison isn't going to teach this guy anything positive--a winchester sxt just might, though. Just my pro-active two cents. Aiki bunnies need not reply.

Don_Modesto
03-09-2005, 06:44 PM
I would have pulled my gun, told him to stop, and killed him if he didn't. I don't tolerate that shit in my neighborhood.

Someone just went to jail for pulling a knife and killing a bouncer for doing what the gorilla in the video did. You're willing to face jail for this?

sanskara
03-09-2005, 07:28 PM
Someone just went to jail for pulling a knife and killing a bouncer for doing what the gorilla in the video did. You're willing to face jail for this?

The circumstances of the incident you're referencing are different enough from the current one under discussion that it's probably not even worth while responding.

Additionally, I'm more than adequately familiar with the gun laws of my state and know my rights, obligations, etc. Add communication skills to the mix and I'd do pretty well in front of a grand jury.

And now I will ask you why you think someone would go to jail for using a firearm LEGALLY in defense of themselves or someone else's life, but not for pounding the shit out of them with martial arts techniques, which might be construed by a county prosecutor as actively engaging and escalating a violent encounter?

Don_Modesto
03-09-2005, 07:35 PM
The circumstances of the incident you're referencing are different enough from the current one under discussion that it's probably not even worth while responding.

Thanks for answering anyway.

And now I will ask you why you think someone would go to jail for using a firearm LEGALLY in defense of themselves or someone else's life, but not for pounding the shit out of them with martial arts techniques, which might be construed by a county prosecutor as actively engaging and escalating a violent encounter?

Because I'm informed largely by...impression. It seems whenever someone who isn't a policeman uses deadly force, they're punished for it. But perhaps that's just because newspapers report man-bites-dog...

Cheers.

Vincent Paglia
03-09-2005, 07:55 PM
Additionally, I'm more than adequately familiar with the gun laws of my state and know my rights, obligations, etc. Add communication skills to the mix and I'd do pretty well in front of a grand jury.

Maybe you meant jury. It would be very unlikely that you would end up in front of a grand jury. The prosecution would likely file an information and you would have a preliminary hearing. Then you would go to trial. Indictments (via grand juries) are used rarely.

And now I will ask you why you think someone would go to jail for using a firearm LEGALLY in defense of themselves or someone else's life, but not for pounding the shit out of them with martial arts techniques, which might be construed by a county prosecutor as actively engaging and escalating a violent encounter?

The law allows people to use lethal force (roughly defined as force that has a decent probability of killing someone) in self defense or defense of others only in circumstances where that type of force is being used. Here, if the big guy punched the little guy and you pulled out your pistol at that point and shot him dead, you would almost certainly be convicted of homicide and the affirmative defense of "defense of others" would likely fail to convince anyone--since your force seemed totally disproportionate to that being used.

However, there is a hell of a lot of racism in the American criminal justice system. If you are white and you had a white Oregon jury, you may get off. In fact, the prosecutor's office may not charge you with any crime at all. If you also wealthy, you have even better chances.

If the letter of the law were followed, though, you would be convicted of homicide and possession of an illegally concealed weapon (unless you have a permit to carry it), then get extra time for using a gun in the course of a homicide. You'd be facing a lot of time.

sanskara
03-09-2005, 07:58 PM
Thanks for answering anyway.
Because I'm informed largely by...impression. It seems whenever someone who isn't a policeman uses deadly force, they're punished for it. But perhaps that's just because newspapers report man-bites-dog...
Cheers.

Well, I can't speak for you, but I'm informed by the actual laws of my state, rather than media impression. FYI: the laws regarding police use of force are generally more restrictive than those applying to private citizens. Give me a permit to carry, coupled with the innate right to make a citizen's arrest, and I'm in a better position legally than many cops.

More importantly, if you are uncomfortable using deadly force in defense of yourself or someone else's life you a) have no chance against someone 300lbs. and over 6 feet tall, and b) no business being a martial arts instructor.

Now that last bit may sound harsh, but this isn't tittly winks, people. If martial arts are to be anything more than hobby designed to make you feel tough in front of your friends, you must be willing to severely injure or kill. Period.

The deal with a firearm for self-defense is that rarely do you ever have to shoot anyone. According to department of justice stats, 99% of all successful defenses with a firearm the gun is never fired. The presence alone of such a weapon and a willingness to use it is enough to make a criminal cease their activities and flee, or acquiesse to capture.

The psychology of the pathological gorilla in this video (as pointed out by various other posters) is that he saw weakness and sprung into action. Do you honestly think he's going to see weakness if someone like me, who has no problem killing under those circumstances, draws a Sig 229 on him? If he does and advances, and I shoot, that's an open and shut case, legally speaking.

But if he does capitulate and I never had to fire a shot or get within five feet of him, for that matter, than what I've demonstrated is more "Aiki" than any physically applied martial technique.

You might want to think about that the next time you're agonizing in your dojo over the most "effective" way to apply iriminage.

sanskara
03-09-2005, 08:09 PM
Maybe you meant jury. It would be very unlikely that you would end up in front of a grand jury. The prosecution would likely file an information and you would have a preliminary hearing. Then you would go to trial. Indictments (via grand juries) are used rarely.

No, I meant grand jury, and it depends on your state. I had a buddy who shot and killed two criminals, and that's what he faced a grand jury; another who shot two, did not have a permit, and was not defending his life, and walked away scott-free. No, he wasn't lucky either, you just need to know the law.

The law allows people to use lethal force (roughly defined as force that has a decent probability of killing someone) in self defense or defense of others only in circumstances where that type of force is being used. Here, if the big guy punched the little guy and you pulled out your pistol at that point and shot him dead, you would almost certainly be convicted of homicide

Not quite. Firstly, I said that I would tell him to stop first--see my above post for reasons why that would most likely work. Secondly, the law basically states (and I'm not in the mood to google right now for links) that you may defend with deadly force your life or someone else's if you believe them to be in mortal danger. The first time I saw this video on our local news it occured to me that the victim could have been easily killed by repeated punches to the head by someone of that size.

However, there is a hell of a lot of racism in the American criminal justice system. If you are white and you had a white Oregon jury, you may get off. In fact, the prosecutor's office may not charge you with any crime at all. If you also wealthy, you have even better chances.

Yes, if all else fails bring out the race card. Congratulations on original but irrelevant thinking.

If the letter of the law were followed, though, you would be convicted of homicide and possession of an illegally concealed weapon (unless you have a permit to carry it), then get extra time for using a gun in the course of a homicide. You'd be facing a lot of time.

Nope, I'm legal to carry in at least eight states, none of which prevent me from disclosing said same (unlike Texas that does, for example.) And there are other mitigating circumstances, that in addition to the truth of the law, as opposed to your rendition, would work in my favor.

Either way, standing around watching someone else get pounded is not an option for me. If it is for you, you should be ashamed.

Vincent Paglia
03-09-2005, 08:22 PM
The first time I saw this video on our local news it occured to me that the victim could have been easily killed by repeated punches to the head by someone of that size.

That is a decent argument in favor of defense of others. I agree that a jury may be persuaded.

Also, my legal analysis was based on you actually killing the guy--obviously if you drew your weapon and the violence stopped right then, it would be a very different situation legally.


Yes, if all else fails bring out the race card. Congratulations on original but irrelevant thinking.

Irrelevant? Race and money are anything but irrelevant in the criminal justice system. If you really killed someone in a pizza parlor (as opposed to discussing it on an Aikido internet board), and you were preparing your defense, you would be stupid not to consider the effect that race may have on your trial, as would the family of the guy you killed.


Either way, standing around watching someone else get pounded is not an option for me. If it is for you, you should be ashamed.

This is totally separate from the legal question.

MitchMZ
03-09-2005, 08:50 PM
What happens when that 300 plb "gorilla" takes your Sig and uses it against you? What happens if an innocent bystander gets hurt or killed from your weapon? What happens if one of his buddies has a gun and shoots your @ss because you threatened his friend? Wouldn't he be defending his disadvantaged friend at that point? Guns (or any weapon for that matter) are not a cure all to self defense, in fact, I would say most times they escalate situations. Don't forget to mention that many women (not sure about stats on men) who have tried to use guns in self-defense have actually had their own weapons turned against them. Try and pull out that weapon fast enough if someone is trying to deck you.

I'm a great shot with pretty much anything with a trigger, but other than hunting and target practice it is pretty much useless seeing as I'm not soldier, cop, hitman, merc, etc. Seeing how packed together people were in that situation, pulling out a gun may be a bad decision. Guns/weapons bring out a lot of negative/nervous energy in people...I've had personal experiences with this, haha.

The whole point of modern martial arts is to train hard so that we don't have to seriously injure or kill the attacker. If you think other wise, IMO, you are a little misinformed. This is "overkill syndrome." If some guy takes a swing at me do I have a right to break his arm? Prolly not. The goal is not to hurt them more that what is necessary. If some guy slashes at me with a knife and I have some luck and parry his attack and do a palm strike to his elbow; that would prolly be more appropriate force. This is entirely situational.

Seeing as I'm NOT superbly skilled in the martial arts I probably would have hit his sternum with a palm strike (just enough to stun him) and then done a half kick to his knee. Just like anyone, big guys joints and pressure points are still mighty vulnerable. Having grappled and sparred with people much bigger than me, I can say being smaller I had certain advantages too. Use atemi and hit vital points, and giants will come down. Ultimately, defense when suprised is a lot harder than offense on the street; whether you have a gun, knife, or your bare hands. This is due to the suprise nature of most attacks. But, attacking wthout the element of suprise is equally as difficult. Yeah, so I would have to hurt the guy pretty bad to defend myself, but that is a lot better than pulling out something that could spell death for anyone in the room.

sanskara
03-09-2005, 09:15 PM
What happens when that 300 plb "gorilla" takes your Sig and uses it against you?

Won't happen. But while we're doing theoretics, what happens when you wise up and realize that you have no chance of applying your precious pressure points and marginal grapplying skills against someone of that size, strength, and aggression? I'll tell you what: suddenly, I'm making a lot of sense.



What happens if an innocent bystander gets hurt or killed from your weapon?

I guess I'm a better shot than you.

What happens if one of his buddies has a gun and shoots your @ss because you threatened his friend?

What, like his girlfriend? Who else was there, an invisible possy? Why is this imaginary person's gun deadlier than mine? Suppose I use martial arts and the other guy knows some too, what then, sherlock?

Guns (or any weapon for that matter) are not a cure all to self defense,

Who said they were? Who said Aikido was, for that matter?

in fact, I would say most times they escalate situations.

Well, "in fact" should be followed by facts, not conjecture.

Don't forget to mention that many women (not sure about stats on men) who have tried to use guns in self-defense have actually had their own weapons turned against them.

Actually, the national safety council stats say that you're less likely to be injured or killed if you use a gun in self-defense than any other method including capitulation. This is also backed up by the research of criminalogists Gary Kleck and David Koppel. But why let the truth interfere with your rant?

Try and pull out that weapon fast enough if someone is trying to deck you.

I admit you may have some difficulty with that, and believe me I sympathize, but it's not my problem.

I'm a great shot with pretty much anything with a trigger, but other than hunting and target practice it is pretty much useless seeing as I'm not soldier, cop, hitman, merc, etc.

Because professionary title automatically makes you a bad ass? If you can't shoot well under pressure, you are not a good shot.

Seeing how packed together people were in that situation, pulling out a gun may be a bad decision.

And yet there was room for haymakers, why is that?

Guns/weapons bring out a lot of negative/nervous energy in people...I've had personal experiences with this, haha.

While that is funny, it's far from my experience. Guns bring out nothing in people that is not the will of the weilder---kinda like a sword or any other device that increases one's immediate power.

The whole point of modern martial arts is to train hard so that we don't have to seriously injure or kill the attacker. If you think other wise, IMO, you are a little misinformed.

Dude, I've had twenty plus years in the martial arts and a plethora of real life experiences. Martial arts are a lot of things to a lot of people, and the fallacy that your training automatically enables you to control people without injuring them is the product of immature ideology. Every situation is different; never forget that.

This is "overkill syndrome.

Yes, your post is, and the following demonstrates quite clearly that you have no experience in real-life combat. Good for you. I hope you never acquire it.

" If some guy takes a swing at me... I probably would have hit his sternum with a palm strike (just enough to stun him) and then done a half kick to his knee. Just like anyone, big guys joints and pressure points are still mighty vulnerable. Having grappled and sparred with people much bigger than me, I can say being smaller I had certain advantages too. Use atemi and hit vital points, and giants will come down. Ultimately, defense when suprised is a lot harder than offense on the street; whether you have a gun, knife, or your bare hands. This is due to the suprise nature of most attacks. But, attacking wthout the element of suprise is equally as difficult. Yeah, so I would have to hurt the guy pretty bad to defend myself..."

Touche.

James Finley
03-09-2005, 10:03 PM
There are most definitely "no win" situations. Firearms are not the "end all, be all" of self-defense, but there are situations in which a firearm may be the only tool that will keep you alive. I think anyone who thinks they are just going to execute a palm strike to the guy and kick his knee out or whatever and its over is kidding himself. Its just not that easy in the real world. (Re-read George Ledyard's post several pages back). That guy ALONE would be a very serious threat to anyone (regardless of his/her skill) due to the size disparity. Throw in the female with him and it is now multiple opponents as well. Add in the possibility that they were under the influence of drugs and/or armed themselves and it was just plain bad news.

I can't speak about other states, but gun ownership and right-to-carry is a given here in South Carolina (and much of the South) and most people here don't automatically "fear" or "hate" guns the way some folks seem to. I am not convinced that if a defender used a firearm when attacked by two people, one of whom was the size of that guy, that it would even go to trial here. There is a an accepted right of self-defense and I have seen numerous cases where people have used guns in less clear-cut situations and were never even charged. This whole issue really has a lot to do with the state laws in the state concerned and the attitudes of the citizens of that state toward guns. It obviously varies dramatically nationwide.

In my experience, no martial art really prepares you for the kind of situation that guy found himself in. All any MA can do is improve your percentages. Nothing gives you a 100% (not even a firearm) even in a one-on-one situation. That's why real self-defense is about awareness, avoidance, and escape. I think everyone would agree that the situation was a bad one to find yourself in no matter what. I think there are definitely lessons to be learned, but I am not willing to go too far with it. I think if the guy would have complained to the manager, the girl would have freaked out just the same.

There's a lot to be said for pizza delivery! James.

sanskara
03-09-2005, 10:30 PM
Hey, we're basically in agreement here, although you didn't explicity state it as such on your end. Incidentally, I actually worked in an establishment that sold pizza and alcohol for almost four years, and often had to throw out drunks, gangbangers, etc. So this clip really hits home, as that's the kind of stuff we dealt with.

I have fond memories of the weapons people would bring illegally into the establishment and that I'd either have to dodge or take, as the situation required. Most of these people should not have been in regular circulation with the general population.

Neverthelss, since the establishment in question was in California and not one of the 38 right to carry states, I was not able to legally carry a gun as a deterrent to would be aggressors, so martial arts and common sense had to win out. Doing things the hard way, with regards to a perp's safety and my methodology of control because of oppressive local and state laws, I'm not foreign to. But now, I'd rather have it easier, and neutralize a problem while it's still several feet away, so I act and carry accordingly, as needed. Nothing is 100% fool proof, but as you stated, it's often a matter of odds.

Interesting, how if this were a gun forum and someone brought up Aikido as good self-defense, people would be all ears, but bring up guns on a socially correct ideological Aikido site (as evidenced by many of its participants, not the administrator,) and the shit hits the fan. As a sideline, I've always wondered why so many pacifist pansies frequent the art of Aikido. It's a fine martial art; it deserves a better following.

L. Camejo
03-09-2005, 10:57 PM
Great points James B. and James F. I was wondering when someone with some practical firearm knowledge would chime in on those options as regards the video in question.

As far as social correctness and ideologies, one of the reasons I started this thread was to bring a little bit of the real world to the dojo darlings who may not be aware of what some real life violence may be like.

The legal information given was most interesting, and informative.

LC:ai::ki:

MitchMZ
03-10-2005, 01:11 PM
Won't happen. But while we're doing theoretics, what happens when you wise up and realize that you have no chance of applying your precious pressure points and marginal grapplying skills against someone of that size, strength, and aggression? I'll tell you what: suddenly, I'm making a lot of sense.

Yes, your post is, and the following demonstrates quite clearly that you have no experience in real-life combat. Good for you. I hope you never acquire it.


Why would I grapple with someone much larger than me? Thats suicide.

Thinking that your gun can never be taken away is not being open-minded. Although, it is not very likely at all. IMO, it is this, "it can never happen to me" that gets people in bad situations to begin with.

I used to use this pistol technique that seemed to make it impossible for people to take it away from me. That is until I showed it to a 6th dan in jeet kune do and he planted me on my butt. Although, if I was standing 20 feet away there was no way he could have done that. Combat is all about controlling the distance between you and the attacker, IMO. For instance, if I have a shotgun I need to get in close. And if I have a gun aimed on a would be attacker, maintaining a good amount distance is crucial.

BTW, don't make assumptions that I've never been in real situations or that I'm a bad shot. Anywho, I don't think anyone on these forums would wan't to be on the receiving end of anyone with a gun, period. I was merely being hypothetical. Can anyone answer me how many pounds of pressure it takes to break someone's knee?

Don_Modesto
03-10-2005, 04:37 PM
...the innate right to make a citizen's arrest, and I'm in a better position legally than many cops.

More importantly, if you are uncomfortable using deadly force in defense of yourself or someone else's life you a) have no chance against someone 300lbs. and over 6 feet tall, and b) no business being a martial arts instructor.

Now that last bit may sound harsh, but this isn't tittly winks, people. If martial arts are to be anything more than hobby designed to make you feel tough in front of your friends, you must be willing to severely injure or kill. Period.

....You might want to think about that the next time you're agonizing in your dojo over the most "effective" way to apply iriminage.

Golly.

I hope you don't presume as much with a gun in hand as you do with a keyboard.

Slowly now

...take a deep breath, no one wants to hurt you

...that's right, easy...

jester
03-10-2005, 05:31 PM
Why would I grapple with someone much larger than me? Thats suicide.

A little off topic but...

Did you get to see the 6'1" 175 lbs. Royce Gracie against the 6'8" 450 lbs. Akebono?

Michael Hackett
03-10-2005, 06:38 PM
I just had to chime in here when discussions of firearms, legitimate self-defense and the other related subjects started rearing their head.

There is a world out there with some very seriously violent folks, thankfully a very few, but enough to convince me over the years that there is such a thing as evil. I've run into many who would go out of their way to hurt someone and never think twice about it. You can generally see them from a mile away and recognize what malignant beings they are. From my own experience, it usually isn't the individual running his mouth and puffing out his chest, but rather the quiet one who slips in and does his damage.

Firearms work most of the time IF you have it with you, IF you are competent in it's use, and IF you are willing to take a life and face the consequences. The consequences aren't always facing a civil or criminal trial, but often result in personal emotional trauma. The average cop in the US who uses deadly force will leave the business within two years even in those cases that were legally and morally justified.

Speaking only of California, a person has the right to use the amount of force necessary to protect himself or others from harm. The standard of proof is what the "reasonable person" would conclude given all the circumstances. In a case like this, with the significant size disparity, perhaps using deadly force would be appropriate here. Storekeepers, shop owners and similar have a right to be armed in their place of business under California law, but not necessarily by the policy of the employer. Many employers prohibit their employees from carrying weapons.

Would I have shot the guy? Who knows - I certainly don't, but I might have under the circumstances. Would I have fought him? Probably. I would have lost too, in all liklihood, but neither one of us would have enjoyed the experience much - kinda like goosing a grizzly in a phone booth.

If you sense that you're in danger, you probably are and should get away if you can. The veneer of civilization is awfully thin with some folks.

George S. Ledyard
03-11-2005, 01:22 AM
As a sideline, I've always wondered why so many pacifist pansies frequent the art of Aikido. It's a fine martial art; it deserves a better following.

Now come on James, this is a bit intolerant. There are plenty of very good arguments for gun control and for pacifism. I believe that there should be more sensible control of firearms in this country but I own and carry, when necessary, a Glock and I wouldn't hesitate to use it if the situation warranted. I am pretty much a pacifist in that I feel that most of the conflicts that have occurred in the last hundred plus years (including the currentone), with the exception of WW 2, were pretty much unnecessary wastes of human lives which did nothing to change society for the better in the long run. But I have no problem fighting when it is necessary and am quite capable of doing so myself if needed. I don't think the fact that I basically hold a certain set of views on the subject of firerams, fighting, and war makes me a pacifist pansy.

sanskara
03-11-2005, 02:26 AM
Now come on James, this is a bit intolerant.

Intolerant to whom? I didn't mention your name or even infer it. I don't automatically envoke the word pacifist and think of you, George. As you stated, you own and carry a gun, not to mention run a school on defense tactics--not exactly passive, if you ask me.

It's my opinion that your anti-war stance is largely political and irrelevant to the current issue. For the record, I think you're wrong, but who cares? This conversation is about self-defense under specific circumstances, not the policies of the Bush administration--God bless him.

There are plenty of very good arguments for gun control and for pacifism.

Two separate statements on two separate subjects, both of which I disagree. People die, George, that's reality. I could care less if they die from cancer when their eighty or at the end of a gun in their teens because of bad behavior. Death is part of life. And to wax philosophical, the Universe doesn't care how you die either. More importantly, it's not my job to protect people who act out violently against others, and I won't.

I believe that there should be more sensible control of firearms in this country but I own and carry, when necessary, a Glock and I wouldn't hesitate to use it if the situation warranted.

Kind of a freedom for me, but not for thee perspective. You know, Senator Diane Feinstein of California used to be quite the pusher for gun control, then it came out that not only did she own assault weapons, but also had a CCW. Don't tell me you're in that camp. If so, give up your gun and permit now. We can all do without hypocisy, liberal or otherwise.

By the way, does it bother you that anyone with a clean record and $65 can basically score a Washington permit, while other states require training? Is that the increased gun control you'd like to see? Did you argue with your county when you got your permit that they should do more than just take your check and fingerprint you? Because for me, a Washington permit was a gingerly trip down to the Clark County Courthouse and a three month wait for the paperwork to go through. I've had DMV appointments that were more harrowing and intrusive.

I am pretty much a pacifist in that I feel that most of the conflicts that have occurred in the last hundred plus years (including the currentone), with the exception of WW 2, were pretty much unnecessary wastes of human lives which did nothing to change society for the better in the long run. But I have no problem fighting when it is necessary and am quite capable of doing so myself if needed. I don't think the fact that I basically hold a certain set of views on the subject of firerams, fighting, and war makes me a pacifist pansy.

Again, I was referring to the general tone of the board. Any criticism I have for you has just been outlined above and directed to you personally. If you consider yourself a pacifist, so be it. I personally think that you subscribe to that ideology, but your business and actions are in direct violation of said same. Consequently, you are not a pacifist, but someone who believes in the turn the other cheek philosophy unless it becomes inconvenient. This is because it feels good to hold such a perspective, even though it really isn't practical, in my opinion.

I, on the other hand, will rush to the plate in theory, but like any intelligent feeling person, will take my swing with careful consideration. Which makes me far more compassionate in reality, than in perspective. Personally, if I'm going to suffer cognitive dissonance over a disparity in action and philosophy, I'd rather do less damage than I said I would than more.

DaveO
03-11-2005, 06:46 AM
Why, oh why does 'guns rule' have to come out? :rolleyes:

Last I checked; the victim in this case wasn't armed; and tha attacker showed no weapon. I sayed 'showed no'; now 'was not armed' - there's a major difference.
People have been discussing 'could've', 'should've', 'would've' fairly steadily on this thread; the probabilities and improbabilities are still in place - and remain largely unchanged - if the victim had been armed or not. He was unprepared for the assault; simply 'having a gun' wouldn't have made a difference in the matter; except possibly to the negative.
Now; lots of people believe very firmly in the benefits of carrying a sidearm. I don't agree (depending on circumstance/location), but I respect their position. However; saying this situation could have been successfully resolved by a weapon is pretty narrow thinking. A sidearm is a ranged weapon - from extreme close range they can be a major handicap to deal with unless the person carrying has a very high level of skill, training and experience in live encounter. The victim here had none of the above - a weapon would have been extremely detrimental to his position.

sanskara
03-11-2005, 07:14 AM
Why, oh why does 'guns rule' have to come out? :rolleyes:

An anti-gun Canadian? Why the wonders never cease.

the probabilities and improbabilities are still in place - and remain largely unchanged - if the victim had been armed or not.

You didn't read carefully enough. It wasn't about the victim being armed. It was about what I personally would have done in that situation as an onlooker.

He was unprepared for the assault; simply 'having a gun' wouldn't have made a difference in the matter; except possibly to the negative.

Now who's speculating? You sound like the kid with the magic spinning back kick.

Now; lots of people believe very firmly in the benefits of carrying a sidearm. I don't agree (depending on circumstance/location), but I respect their position.

I'll bet.

However; saying this situation could have been successfully resolved by a weapon is pretty narrow thinking.

I said that I would have helped the victim with my weapon; I never put myself in the place of the victim. You obviously didn't understand the last two pages of the thread.

A sidearm is a ranged weapon - from extreme close range they can be a major handicap to deal with unless the person carrying has a very high level of skill, training and experience in live encounter.

I'm going to go ahead and make a wild guess that guns scare you and that your experience with them is extremely limited. Tell you what, sport, since I trained in the Ki Society myself for many years, I'll throw you a bone: you come down to Portland and try and take a squirt gun from me from five feet away (which is within the ten foot range that most gun fights take place,) without getting hit by water in a vital area (I'll only pull the trigger five times, since my smallest gun is a five shot Smith & Wesson 340PD .357 magnum.) If you can achieve that, I'll come on this board, start a thread about the incident, and eat some crow. If you can't, you buy me a box of jacketed hollow point bullets, which I'm sure would be just as much a disgrace for you. Deal?

The victim here had none of the above - a weapon would have been extremely detrimental to his position.

Reading comprehension, Dave. Learn it, live it, demonstrate it in your posts. The victim was clearly unschooled in the finer points of combat. NOBODY is suggesting that handing him a weapon he didn't know how to use would have turned the tide. Now, you're either intellectually opaque or deliberately serving up a heaping helping of straw man. Either way, you're wrong.

Think I'm being rude? Tolerance is the luxury of those with no convictions.

Ron Tisdale
03-11-2005, 08:15 AM
:) Intersting points of view...While James B. and I are most likely at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have to say that so far his points make a lot of sense. The problem is, while I'd probably hand James a gun in a hot second and say "protect me", I'm not sure I want every tom, dick and harry (dirty or otherwise) packing heat at the pizzaria.

Anyone hear of the shooting at a court house recently where an armed bystander took on the shooter? He died...

Ron

sanskara
03-11-2005, 08:40 AM
Hey Ron,

I appreciate the nod of affirmation. The armed bystander died because the gunman had body armor. A single cop in the same situation would have met a similar fate. But if there had been no body armor, I think we would have had a success story, as the gunman was unaware of the bystander until after he was fired upon. For all we know, the distraction that he presented actually saved some lives, even though it cost him his own.

Incidentally, I made up my mind a long time ago watching the infamous footage of the bank robbers in Hollywood taking on the LAPD several years ago with automatic weapons and armor, that I would always defend with the classic three shot pattern of two to the torso, one to the head--which I train regularly at the range I'm a member of.

This corrects for body armor, although I would probably take a good look at the clothing of an individual, if given a chance, as some types of armor can easily be seen as bulk under clothing. And unfortunately, the third shot is always a possible miss and hit of an innocent bystander, due to the recoil of the firearm, instinctive manual correction, and the fact that after one is hit by bullets, their head may move erratically. Therefore, if you can just hit the torso and neutralize the problem, all the better.

Mel Barker
03-11-2005, 08:42 AM
I'm going to go ahead and make a wild guess that guns scare you and that your experience with them is extremely limited.

Oops, didn't see the land mine!

Unfortunately, James your reasoned arguments just succumbed to your bravado, (and I was so pulling for you.)

I'll leave it to Dave to correct your erroneous assumptions.

Mel

sanskara
03-11-2005, 08:47 AM
By the by, there's a breaking story on the news right now about a criminal who allegedly swiped a deputy's gun and shot and killed a judge and two others in an Atlanta courtroom.

While the argument can be made that even cops with training cannot always prevent their guns from being taken from them, the beauty of being a plain clothes citizen with a concealed handgun license is that no one knows you have a gun. If no one knows you have one unless you pull it on them under conditions that are advantageous to you controlling them, then you're in a better position than most uniformed law enforcement, as you won't be specifically targeted for disarmament.

Additionally, as memory serves, your average officer gets less than ten hours of firearms training, and maybe sixty hours total self-defense. George may know better, as it's been a while since I've worked with the police on defense tactics, and that only peripherally.

sanskara
03-11-2005, 08:52 AM
Oops, didn't see the land mine!

Unfortunately, James your reasoned arguments just succumbed to your bravado, (and I was so pulling for you.)

I'll leave it to Dave to correct your erroneous assumptions.

Mel


Yeah, you sound like you're on my side. If Dave does have firearms experience, then his views are truly sad. I guess it just goes to show you that not everyone assimilates and encodes what's presented to them accurately. But what the hay, let's let good 'ol Dave chime in, eh "buddy"?

jester
03-11-2005, 09:52 AM
Hey James, I was reading your posts but I never got to see the video until last night so I couldn't really comment about what happened.

If you had pulled a gun on the guy, what's the odds of the bullet ricocheting off of something (his bones maybe) and hitting someone else? What's the odds of you being bumped, once people see a gun and they panic, and missing the guy? What if someone came in right after the big guy got shot, and they pulled a gun thinking you are robbing the place? Would you shoot them to? Would they shoot you? What's the odds that this guy had another friend in line right behind you?

I love guns, and have been around them my whole life, but there's a time and place for a shootout. I think a crowded pizzeria isn't the place.

Also, if they sell beer there, it's illegal to carry the firearm inside. Anyway, since you yourself weren't in any danger, you would be locked up right now for using excessive force and wouldn't be able to respond to my post.

sanskara
03-11-2005, 10:04 AM
If you had pulled a gun on the guy, what's the odds of the bullet ricocheting off of something (his bones maybe) and hitting someone else?

Limited, given the ballistics of how a hollow point (in my case, a cousin of the infamous black talon load) mushrooms to stay within the object of entry.

What's the odds of you being bumped, once people see a gun and they panic, and missing the guy? What if someone came in right after the big guy got shot, and they pulled a gun thinking you are robbing the place? Would you shoot them to? Would they shoot you? What's the odds that this guy had another friend in line right behind you?

Hey, what if five hundred Ninjas all descended from UFO's and tried to skin me with balisongs? Let's try to keep this an adult conversation.

I love guns, and have been around them my whole life, but there's a time and place for a shootout. I think a crowded pizzeria isn't the place.

So stand there and watch a guy get pounded then. Your choice.

Also, if they sell beer there, it's illegal to carry the firearm inside.

It varies by state. In Oregon, there is no such restriction. Many other states also allow concealed carry in places that sell alcohol.

Anyway, since you yourself weren't in any danger, you would be locked up right now for using excessive force and wouldn't be able to respond to my post.

This has been covered already. Please read the thread again. Oh, and have a nice day.

Talon
03-11-2005, 11:05 AM
Ok I have to chime in. I just couldn't take it any more. I have plenty of fire arms experience, fired a number of hand guns and assault rifles in my time and own a couple of guns. So I can't say that I'm green when it comes to fire arms and they certainly don't scare me (unless they are pointed at me). I can’t say that guns are a bad thing and am not a anti-gun Canadian.

I'm really impressed at how certain people on here see things simply as "right and wrong", "black and white" dismiss any possibility of their failure and make statements about ninja's jumping out of ufos, then on the same token say that we should keep this an adult conversation. It’s quite amazing to me that this self-righteous individual hasn’t received more criticism. This is exactly how simple-minded extreme right winged people see the world - Very simple (right and wrong, black and white). Unfortunately there are a number of grays that also exist in this world and things don’t always go as one might plan in the real world.

Calling another member a typical an anti gun Canadian because he shares a different view or perspective. Hey get off your high horse and relax man. This type of attitude is exactly why the world has a certain opinion about the US administration and Americans in general - Arrogant, self-righteous cowboys who always think they are right (when really they are not). To set the record straight I don’t feel that all Americans have this arrogant attitude and by the results of the election and frequent visits to this board prove that.

Now, I believe my fellow Canadian Dave was asking you how carrying a gun would have helped the victim in this case and not necessarily follow your scenario of you being the bystander. I didn’t find it too difficult to comprehend, why did you? Tunnel vision maybe? I wonder how that could be? So I have a couple simple questions for you.

1. How carrying a gun would have helped the victim in this case?
2. Why do you train in Akido or other martial arts if guns are the be all end all solution to these self-defense situations so much better and you’re allowed to carry?
3. Why is it so difficult for you to consider that things are not always black and white, right and wrong and things can turn out different that you plan? (Ie. Some innocent bystander gets shot, or the big 300 lb guy takes a bullet yet manages to take the gun from you and blow your head off before he goes down.

Now lets look at what happened here in the end. The victim was relatively OK not injured for life or dead, will likely get some money out of this and the perpetrators are alive, caught and getting their sentence as ruled by law. Isn’t this the way of a civilized society? In the scenario of our local John Wayne, two people would likely be dead (girlfriend and assailant) and he would be answering to the legal system himself but of course he would claim that he did the RIGHT THING! This is of course unless something went terribly wrong and more people were hurt

DaveO
03-11-2005, 11:43 AM
Paul; please calm down. I personally have not yet answered because I haven't framed an adequate response. There is no need to respond to the 'Canadian' comment due to its patently silly basis; and it is especially not required to answer with insults and a national slur of your own.

You make some valid points; ones which echo what I'm working on here but please don't go blasting off; it's unwarranted. :)

To James: My experience in the field is what it is; I see neither the need nor the ability to 'prove' it here in Aikiweb. I have written from time to time regarding my opinions of self defense and weaponry here on this forum; rather than restate old ideas I suggest you search under my name for them.

I do not approve of weapons in the hands of civilians; however that is my opinion and mine alone - professionals can (and usually do) agree to disagree on many aspects of this field. There are no single correct answers. There are many with whom I work closely who have widely different opinions than I; there is nothing - especially our regular training and discussion - to say who is right and who is wrong.

Finally; please refrain from making silly challenges on the Aikiweb. I personally do not accept them; nor will any professional I am aware of. However; if you wish to meet to compare technique on this or other subjects; please contact me offlist via my messages and I will do my best to arrange it.

sanskara
03-11-2005, 12:01 PM
Finally; please refrain from making silly challenges on the Aikiweb. I personally do not accept them; nor will any professional I am aware of. However; if you wish to meet to compare technique on this or other subjects; please contact me offlist via my messages and I will do my best to arrange it.

It's not a silly challenge, Dave. If you're going to suggest that a firearm is a "ranged" weapon, as if to say that it's not recommended to use it at "extreme close range" without defining the term for purposes of this debate, and expect that to overturn every argument made thus far, then we disagree, plain and simple.

A silly challenge would be the old come down to my neck of the woods and I'll kick your ass. What I suggested was a reasonable and safe way to test your theory. I also laced it with sarcasm, as if you couldn't tell (there it goes again.) So let's keep it in perspective, and leave the melodrama at the door, so to speak. There are no victims here. If you post, sometimes you have to back it up. I've mostly chosen facts, interlaced with my opinion. You? Well, we'll just let it go and move on.

Anyway, I've got a plane to catch. If this thread is at the top of the queue on Monday, I'll log back in and look it over. Otherwise, I've said my "peace."

jester
03-11-2005, 12:01 PM
Hey, what if five hundred Ninjas all descended from UFO's and tried to skin me with balisongs? Let's try to keep this an adult conversation.
Well 500 ninjas in a ufo is rather doubtful, the things I mentioned aren't so far fetched. Let's turn the scifi channel off and get back to reality for a minute.
You are admitting you have no forethought to your actions? These are valid questions that you have only a fraction of a second to determine. I think your response is the only thing that's not adult here.


Scarpino suffered a broken eye socket and nose, a concussion and a chipped tooth in the beating. Did he die? Does he have brain damage? So the beating wasn't a life or death thing. I've seen people with worse injuries from skateboarding.

You seem like a know it all, so It's useless to go on about this, but remember that it's a jury that will convict you, not your interpretation of your states laws.

Ron Tisdale
03-11-2005, 12:15 PM
The victim was relatively OK not injured for life or dead, will likely get some money out of this and the perpetrators are alive, caught and getting their sentence as ruled by law. Isn't this the way of a civilized society?

I can't say for 'civilized', but I do know that I want any society that I live in to allow me the right of self-defense. Personally, I don't like guns, so it is doubfull that I would ever carry one, but I would certainly feel it appropriate to use deadly force in the situation described. The victim was lucky...he could just as well have been killed or permanantly injured. And I personally will not leave it up to the good graces of my attacker to determine how much damage they will do to my prostrate body.

Ron (but hey, Canadians and others are welcome to disagree) :)

Talon
03-11-2005, 12:26 PM
There is no need to respond to the 'Canadian' comment due to its patently silly basis; and it is especially not required to answer with insults and a national slur of your own.

Dave. I really did not want to come across as a national surer :)
And after reading my post, I must say that I wish I spell checked better but can't say that my post was uncalled for or improper.

To all that were offended by my previous post, please accept my sincere apologies it was not my intention to offend anyone.

Michael Hackett
03-11-2005, 12:31 PM
There is an interesting article in this month's "FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin" dealing with suicide by cop cases, written in part by Ed Davis. In one of the cases reviewed, the suspect was shot five times at close range with a .45 caliber handgun and only surrendered a few minutes later after realizing he was hurt. The rounds should have stopped him instantly, but didn't. He took rounds to the chest and two the groin as well as rounds to the arm and leg. Firearms usually work, but they don't always. Nothing does.

Pepper spray is a good alternative in some cases like the pizza parlor caper. It doesn't work in every case either, but usually does. What it doesn't do is kill or injure innocent bystanders with missed rounds, deflected bullets, or through and through bullets. Maybe a better choice in a crowded environment.

Another case to consider is the Miami FBI shoot out a few years ago. Two agents lost their lives and five were seriously wounded after delivering a number of fatal wounds to the two suspects. I've seen people who did almost impossible things after suffering a fatal gunshot wound. I've also seen them dropped instantly. One size does not fit all, so to speak.

Staying out of bad situations is the best course of action. That failing, having more than one tool in the toolbox is a big advantage. John Wayne was an actor, Rambo was a character, and the Marquis of Queensbury is dead.

DaveO
03-11-2005, 12:34 PM
BTW: Paul; please don't think I'm slamming you for your post, I'm sorry if it looked that way. Thank you for your support, truly. I know you didn't make a deliberate shot at Americans; you were quite clear on that. It's just that this topic is starting to drift into some seriously risky emotional range and assumptions start flying around - from experience on this board once that happens things can fall apart rather quick. :D
I'm just trying to forestall blowups and keep things civil. Most likely I overreacted myself but I was distracted. :)

Talon
03-11-2005, 12:35 PM
Ron, I agree with you completely and your opinion is always respected.

I was just pointing out the obvious that in this particular case, shooting the attacker would have likely resulted in more carnage than not shooting them. Also, under the circumstances, I doubt the victim would have had any opportunity to effectively defend himself with a firearm unless pardon the pun "he jumped the gun" before the real attack occured.


I can't say for 'civilized', but I do know that I want any society that I live in to allow me the right of self-defense. Personally, I don't like guns, so it is doubfull that I would ever carry one, but I would certainly feel it appropriate to use deadly force in the situation described. The victim was lucky...he could just as well have been killed or permanantly injured. And I personally will not leave it up to the good graces of my attacker to determine how much damage they will do to my prostrate body.

Ron (but hey, Canadians and others are welcome to disagree) :)

Ron Tisdale
03-11-2005, 02:16 PM
John Wayne was an actor, Rambo was a character, and the Marquis of Queensbury is dead.

That would make a good signature!

RT

MitchMZ
03-11-2005, 03:58 PM
My dad always seems to tell me stories about his Hapkido/Judo instructor... So, I remember him telling me about his instructor disarming two men with pistols (I think they were training with the Police Department) before they even knew what hit them. It is possible, but keep in mind he was a master of Judo and Hapkido and a few other Korean arts.

That is the dilemma with weapons, is that they can be used against you if someone is a superior strategist and fighter. In very close situations, guns are a bad idea. If I was being shot at from 50 feet away, well, then a gun is a great thing to have.

L. Camejo
03-11-2005, 04:19 PM
Which goes back to the saying that the best weapon is the mind. All the rest are merely extensions of that simple fact.

LC:ai::ki:

George S. Ledyard
03-12-2005, 02:45 AM
On the subject of a firearm in this scenario... I think that an attempt to access a firearm in a tight quarters situation like that might very well have ended up as a weapons retention issue. By the time the victim had recognized that the big guy was a serious threat it was too late to safely access a weapon. After taking that first hit, I doubt he could have accessed a firearm and successfully used it; that hit took the life out of that fellow. Had he tried to reach for a weapon with the assailant at that range it would have been very possible for the assailant to engage him and struggle for the weapon.

In any kind of close quarters scenario, good empty hand skills are the bottom line. A firearm is great but at close range it can often turn into a struggle for the weapon. Unless one has specifically trained for close quarters deployment of a firearm, you run the risk of having the assailant neutralize the weapon and potentially shoot you with it. Frankly at that range, a knife in the proper carry rig would be more effective in terms of deployment. However you run into all sort of problems in terms of use of force as there is a distinct bias against edged weapons in this country. Use of a knife is associated with low class hoodlums. A jury that would accept a gun used for self defense might very well rule against a knife wielding defender...

But at that range and in close quarters in terms of pure effectiveness I'd rather have a blade.

DaveO
03-12-2005, 07:38 AM
On the subject of a firearm in this scenario... I think that an attempt to access a firearm in a tight quarters situation like that might very well have ended up as a weapons retention issue. By the time the victim had recognized that the big guy was a serious threat it was too late to safely access a weapon. After taking that first hit, I doubt he could have accessed a firearm and successfully used it; that hit took the life out of that fellow. Had he tried to reach for a weapon with the assailant at that range it would have been very possible for the assailant to engage him and struggle for the weapon.

In any kind of close quarters scenario, good empty hand skills are the bottom line. A firearm is great but at close range it can often turn into a struggle for the weapon. Unless one has specifically trained for close quarters deployment of a firearm, you run the risk of having the assailant neutralize the weapon and potentially shoot you with it. Frankly at that range, a knife in the proper carry rig would be more effective in terms of deployment. However you run into all sort of problems in terms of use of force as there is a distinct bias against edged weapons in this country. Use of a knife is associated with low class hoodlums. A jury that would accept a gun used for self defense might very well rule against a knife wielding defender...

But at that range and in close quarters in terms of pure effectiveness I'd rather have a blade.

I concur; especially with the opening and closing paragraphs. :)
In the shown case; the victim would of course have been just as helpless with a knife as with a sidearm but all in all at point-blank range I'll trust a contact weapon over a ranged weapon any day. Not that I like them, far from it but they're far more tactically sound, IMO.

James: Yes, it was a silly challenge - a bit of blather without much point other than bluster. I told you I do not accept challenges. I also told you that if you want to meet face to face to discuss the differences in our opinion, to please contact me offlist - I thought I would repeat that since you did not appear to have seen it the first time. I've been teaching unarmed/close quarters work for quite a while so if you wish to compare opinions/skills; I am at your service. Hopefully, we will both learn something from the event.

Shane Mokry
03-12-2005, 07:28 PM
I have never liked bullies. It is clear that the woman and her boyfriend are bullies. :grr:

IMO, she was in the wrong and knew it. That is why she reacted so violently to the passive aggressive comments. After that...I think she and her boyfriend should have been too busy trying to dig the cell phone out of her forehead to fight. :D

It may seem harsh but no more harsh than what happened to the victim...who in my opinion wasn't completely in the right either. I think he should have nicely and respectfully asked her to wait her turn. :cool:

Shane

Bill Danosky
03-12-2005, 07:53 PM
Well, I really wish I could get that video to work. Network something or other... I can't offer any tactical analysis of the situation in question, but having been the smaller opponent in every encounter in my life I do have a couple of points to make from the description:

#1. From the sound of it, if you're this Scarpino fellow, you are, in fact, about to get your ass kicked because there's no way you can take this Big Guy.

#2. Later, it's going to be the rest of your life and you still want to feel good about what happened.

That means, IMHO, when doom is impending, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving a good account of yourself. So pick your shots deliberately and make them early. Try to get some people in between you and if you do go down, try to drag as many people with you as possible. You'll need them to hopefully take some shots that were intended for you. (That'll teach them to just bystand.)

Keep attacking! If you can make it through the first 20 seconds, you might be winning. Even if you're losing, the longer you can stay in it, the more likely it is that the cavalry will arrive in time.

Now, I know there's a whole world of things that can happen with the girlfriend, the crowd, whatever, but in all likelihood you're still going to take that ass kicking. All you can do is take every chance you can and hope it looks good on the news, because these days, it's probably going to be on the news. :uch:

Bill Danosky
03-14-2005, 09:54 PM
Okay- I just got the video to work and the only thing I can say, if you had to bet your life on one technique- a really hard ridge hand to the temple as a pre-emptive strike. Once that first punch got landed, the fight was over, and from his size I'm betting that guy who got his ass kicked can take one better than I can.

It's still a very long shot, but I saw it correctly executed in the first year of the UFC against a gi-freakin-normous mountain man. Nobody could believe it, but it dropped the guy like a brick :dead:

He lived, by the way.

Mike Collins
03-15-2005, 01:16 AM
Okay, since we're going down this road...

I'd have knocked the fat prick the hell out. See, I know I can do that, because I'm a 300 lb guy, who's over 6'2" tall, and I've trained a while. More importantly, I used to do just that for fun, and I know how to do that. Then, I'd have knocked his ugly girlfriend/wife out too. Then I'd have looked around to see if there was any more of them around, and I'd have knocked them the hell out, too. In fact, I'd have knocked the idiot that got this beating out, for causing me to waste my energy knocking all these other people out, and then I'd have turned my attention on the store manager for not knocking someone out his damned self.

Now, I recognize that not everyone has the ability to knock people out at will because they lack the size and nearly legendary skill that I have, but then again, I doubt that carrying a concealed gun is all that possible for some folks. Some because they've made a choice, some because they feel compelled by religious/spriitual beliefs, but for whatever reason, they don't have the weapon under the hawaiian shirt allatime. Tough. Don't have the size? Too bad. You guys will just have to discuss what's possible in your worlds but as for me and James, well by god, we've got our answers all sewed up. For the record, I support your rights to grow to my size, but if you aikibunny pansies refuse to grow, and you can't be bothered carrying a Glock or an equal/better weapon, well you've made your choices, and you might as well accept that your practice of martial arts is futile.

OR... You could look at this as school, and recognize that when people get worked up, they's hard to calm down, and once someone's made the mental choice that they're gonna fight, chances are that someone's gonna be victimized, and you can't scare someone who's made the decision, they're already scared. Might as well leave ASAP, and use maai, or start attacking the center with whatever you do have. For me (being a legend in my own mind and all), I think when I get around someone like that, I'll try to get the hell out, or see if I can't make them laugh somehow. Fights, all fights, sometimes especially the ones you win, HURT. A LOT.

No disrespect intended James, but as a general statement, guns are simply not available, unless you make a choice to live like someone who doesn't want little kids to jump on them, and is apprehensive all the time. I simply don't want that much of an edge anymore. One of my good friends makes the decision to sit with his back to the door, and when he's in his home state, keeps a weapon all the time. I think he'll be a much happier guy when he's just not as "aware" as all that. As for me, if it's there, and I can pick it up, that'll do as a weapon, if necessary. But I smile, and I say yes, sir and no, sir, and I don't cause people to yell at me, unless I'm damned sure they're in my back pocket already. I'm just too lazy to be a "warrior".

This was intended to be humorous, even if a bit sharp. Sorry.

mathewjgano
03-15-2005, 02:29 AM
Interesting, how if this were a gun forum and someone brought up Aikido as good self-defense, people would be all ears, but bring up guns on a socially correct ideological Aikido site (as evidenced by many of its participants, not the administrator,) and the shit hits the fan. As a sideline, I've always wondered why so many pacifist pansies frequent the art of Aikido. It's a fine martial art; it deserves a better following.

LOL! James you dog you <evil grin>. To begin with, I've spoken to plenty of gun enthusiasts who trounced Aikido as being, to use your own word, a "pansie" art, so maybe try not to make sweeping generalizations like you did (which are blatantly wrong per my experience).
Take it easy.

mathewjgano
03-15-2005, 02:34 AM
Okay, since we're going down this road...
This was intended to be humorous, even if a bit sharp. Sorry.

Personally I enjoyed it...

sanskara
03-15-2005, 03:23 AM
James: Yes, it was a silly challenge - a bit of blather without much point other than bluster. I told you I do not accept challenges. I also told you that if you want to meet face to face to discuss the differences in our opinion, to please contact me offlist - I thought I would repeat that since you did not appear to have seen it the first time. I've been teaching unarmed/close quarters work for quite a while so if you wish to compare opinions/skills; I am at your service. Hopefully, we will both learn something from the event.

Sure Dave, whether you issue the challenge or I do, it's all the same to me. Next time I'm in Toronto (I've never been)...

sanskara
03-15-2005, 03:42 AM
On the subject of a firearm in this scenario... I think that an attempt to access a firearm in a tight quarters situation like that might very well have ended up as a weapons retention issue. By the time the victim had recognized that the big guy was a serious threat it was too late to safely access a weapon. After taking that first hit, I doubt he could have accessed a firearm and successfully used it; that hit took the life out of that fellow. Had he tried to reach for a weapon with the assailant at that range it would have been very possible for the assailant to engage him and struggle for the weapon.

A couple of things: I'll reiterate once again, no one's advocating that the victim in this case should have armed himself. He obviously lacks awareness, a machine gun wouldn't have helped him.

Secondly, why is that those who are afraid of their weapon being taken from them imagine some scenario where it's completely ineffective in their hand, but magicly becomes deadly in someone else's? Look, the reason you don't want someone to get your gun is because they could shoot you with it. But it also stands to reason that if it's in my hand and not yours the option becomes mine first to shoot.

I don't buy the notion that the pizza parlor is too close quarter for firearm combat; I've worked in tighter spots, it's not that hard. Just ask your average air marshall if firearms are effective in tighter spaces like cockpits and airplane ailes. If history is any indication, hand to hand combat doesn't always fare so well--flight 93, for example, that had at least one black belt in Judo attempting to storm the cockpit (Jeremy Glick was his name, if I recall correctly, not to be confused with the anti-war activist whose father died in the trade center collapses.)

In any kind of close quarters scenario, good empty hand skills are the bottom line.

Nothing wrong with empty hand combat skills, I've spent a good twenty years training that stuff myself; it certainly has it's place, and is a Hell of a lot of fun to train. But the right tool for the job is the right tool for the job, and the right tool for someone over 300lbs. is a gun--all bravado aside. For me, looking at guns as tools means there's no reason for me personally to avoid them, as if they were automatically going to mean my death or someone else's. Choices and control are still there, just as they are in empty-handed martial arts.

A firearm is great but at close range it can often turn into a struggle for the weapon.

If by often you mean theoretically possible, then I agree. But an intelligent, skilled person will set up the draw so that they have plenty of reaction time to fire on an assailant. Space is only one condition that limits or extends response time.

Unless one has specifically trained for close quarters deployment of a firearm, you run the risk of having the assailant neutralize the weapon and potentially shoot you with it.

No, because see, if we're in close quarters a gun is automatically "ineffective", and therefore, I'll just take it right back. In fact, when the police finally arrive, that's what we'll be doing: tossing the gun back and forth.

However you run into all sort of problems in terms of use of force as there is a distinct bias against edged weapons in this country. Use of a knife is associated with low class hoodlums. A jury that would accept a gun used for self defense might very well rule against a knife wielding defender...

I couldn't agree more. That's also been my experience. Although, ironically, if you're caught with a knife, but haven't brandished it and threatened someone, it goes without saying that you'll have an easier time passing it off as a utility or saying that you didn't know that that type of knife was illegal, etc. than walking on an unlawful possession of concealed firearms charge.

But at that range and in close quarters in terms of pure effectiveness I'd rather have a blade.

I'll take a gun any day. Not only can I draw, aim, and shoot with very little space, but nine plus times out of ten, I can control an attacker without ever firing (see above comment about the Dept. of Justice stat, that's maintained relative consistency for the last thirteen years I've been studying it.) Legally, I'm protected if I pull a gun, not so if I pull a knife, which ties into your previous comment.

Mel Barker
03-15-2005, 08:40 AM
Well, if I were to ever mess up enough to have someone beating on me, I hope James is near by, and not the people that insist that they shouldn't get involved. Cowardice is the best means of self defense yet conceived, but it doesn't help anyone else too terribly much.

Mel Barker

Mary Eastland
03-15-2005, 08:52 AM
Wow....my first defense is never to be a prison guard.
Mir

Kevin Masters
03-15-2005, 08:56 AM
Okay, since we're going down this road...

I'd have knocked the fat prick the hell out. See, I know I can do that, because I'm a 300 lb guy, who's over 6'2" tall, and I've trained a while. More importantly, I used to do just that for fun, and I know how to do that. Then, I'd have knocked his ugly girlfriend/wife out too. Then I'd have looked around to see if there was any more of them around, and I'd have knocked them the hell out, too. In fact, I'd have knocked the idiot that got this beating out, for causing me to waste my energy knocking all these other people out, and then I'd have turned my attention on the store manager for not knocking someone out his damned self.

...

This was intended to be humorous, even if a bit sharp. Sorry.

That was freaking awesome.
:D

Bill Danosky
03-15-2005, 11:12 AM
Sure Dave, whether you issue the challenge or I do, it's all the same to me. Next time I'm in Toronto (I've never been)...

This ongoing situation has been an interesting exercise in escalation, hasn't it? Very interesting, taken against the larger context of this thread....

Personally, I think you two should meet at some dojo. You could really have some fun working out some viable SD in a perfectly acceptable setting, then retire to a local watering hole and hammer a few pitchers (in the spirit of colleague-ship and brotherhood, of course).

Congratulations- you are now good friends.

As Aikidokas, we all have a venue for this kind of thing. We train to learn and always make sure nobody gets hurt in the process. As a matter of protocol, I think the person whose dojo hosts should buy the drinks, BTW.

rob_liberti
03-17-2005, 11:18 AM
Okay well, I never got to see the video, but after reading 7 pages, I can safely make the following comments on what I would have done if I were in line.

I agree that this kind of thing is real combat. I have no dilutions about "the psychological bubble created by our protective societal norms and conventions and our 'social contract' with each other."

The right way to handle that would have been to say "I'll call you back", hang up, put the cell phone away and watch to see if a manager handles the situation correctly. I would grab the comb I have in my pocket as that would have been the best 'weapon-like-thing' I had on me.

If you see it is not going well then you leave. Period. Much like Jean said to do. In you car, call home on the cell phone and have them order a pizza for delivery or pickup. While eating the pizza at home, you can discuss the irate customer as sacrastically as you want.

It is simply not up to me to straighten out who is being fair in the world with regard to lines. If enough people get annoyed and follow suit, the manager/owner of that store will have to come up with a simple ticket system like at deli in most stores or something else - or they get to go out of business. This kind of thing was handled in New York city with regard to making lines to get cabs by the mayor just deciding that the police would ticket anyone breaking the rules.

I agree that it may not be part of the job description of the person behind the counter to handle such a situation. Their default action always falls to get a manager. The manager is supposed to try to calm down the irate customer, if they can't they are supposed to ask them to leave, and if the irate customer doesn't leave then the manager is supposed call the police. All of that takes time. If the other employee continues to server the customers in line, and the craziness is semi-contained then they are handling it okay and I might stay in line.

Now, if the women did start yelling at me while I walked briskly toward the door, I'd probably tell her "I'm sorry but my grandmother is on fire, excuse me!"

If she managed to close the distance to attack me, I'd be doing aikido with her - doing minimal damage as I controlled that situation. Again, I agree that this is not dojo time. This is real combat time and she could have a weapon herself - which is why I would be walking briskly towards safety and towards more space to move around in. If she were armed with a knife (I don't think she could have caught me before I got to the door, but..) if I had no other options but to fight her or be stabbedor slashed I'd pull out a comb to at least have something in my hand that slashed too.

If her huge boyfriend came at me, we'd already be outside or very close to that door as opposed to such a confined place. I would do aikido with him as well - because that would be my best chance to survive.

Because I train for multiple attack, I am quite certain that a lot of her body would somehow be between me and him. If he started to attack/approach in a threatening manner, I'd really want to somehow throw her at his knees. He could lunge - and I'd throw him or he could back up and catch his girlfriend. Either way, I'd have a lot more distance and room to be working with. Depending on the situation, (say no one was armed) I might actually go for ikkyo, iriminage, or shihonage. I believe they work well as long as you are not directly pushing. pulling lifting, etc...

If I somehow ended up in that corner and the big guy was attacking me, I'd certainly consider helping him hit that wall instead of my head. I'm quite sure that I wouldn't be looking at my cell phone. You can change where the person is tracking you in space just by moving your knees like in the rowing exercise. I might get him to miss me completely with a strike. If minimal damage to be saye really equalled "nuking" him, well then I suppose that's what I'd go for as well. It's all judgement.

As far as being in the line, watching the attack, I personally would already be gone. I made a commitment to be around for my wife and child. That's my priority. I'd be happy to call the police from my car. I think the passifists in aikido are a bit confused. Aikido cannot work with any degree of dependability if you are not in position to do maximum damage and making the choice to do less. Ghandi's message was not passive resistance, in fact it was to do the right thing despite the consequences. In my judgement, the right thing if for me to be home with my family eating pizza.

Now, one pont to larry. While I have been know to train a bit hard at times resulting in a bit of blood and getting lumped up - I like the term "darling" and wouldn't mind a bit if someone called me that.

I don't have a gun, and I don't want one. I don't have a mask or a cape either - although might not mind having a cape.

Lastly, "Tolerance is the luxury of those with no convictions." - Wow... I hope those convictions are extremely well thought out, quite often that's just not the case.

Rob

xuzen
03-17-2005, 09:34 PM
Rob,

This is response to your post #170, good reply. Clear and concise 'what to do list' in such situation.

Boon.

ian
03-18-2005, 07:55 AM
A frightening situation, the staff should have been more forthright to calm the situation down! The victim should not have got into a 'face to face' with the woman. He should have immediately kept the space around him, regardless of whether there was a woman involved. The large bloke felt he had to defend her for the sake of his own ego. It looked like this fight was unavoidable in that it had all the bad elements going for it. AGAIN he let the attacker get the first strike in. After that his chances dropped considerably. Basically fear and unwillingness to physically protect himself once his space was invaded produced an inability to defend himself. Victim was a sitting duck.

Ima
03-22-2005, 03:28 PM
Having been in somewhat similar situations I’d like to add my comments.

The girlfriend who cut in line was exhibiting classic passive/aggressive behavior.
She was going to cut in line, and we will never know for sure exactly why. Was it an attempt on her part just to save her valuable time, or was it from her feelings of inferiority and a “need” to have power over those she cut in front of?

In the city I work in there was an interesting development that was even documented in the newspaper and discussed in several editorials.

People began a very odd behavior of stepping off the curb into the street in front of moving cars. Yes, it happened to me many, many times. At first I just simply could not believe it. Eventually I just came to expect it and just had to learn to drive very cautiously and much slower than usual. I even had mothers with children in baby strollers step right off the curb and slowly walk across the street.
The whole time none of these people would look at you or even acknowledge that you were there. However, I always had an odd feeling that they were just “Daring” you to hit them, a very strange game of chicken if you ask me. I don't know of anyone actually getting hit, but I always had the feeling that it would have become a "bad" situation similar to this pizza video.
The “experts” who discussed this in the newspaper talked about the feelings of these people to have the need to have a certain power or control over the drivers in the cars. In my opinion the woman who cut in line was doing the exact same thing.

Once he made the comment about it NOW taking longer to get the pizza- He gave her what she was looking for – the opportunity to lash out.

I have been in the same situation and have had people blatantly cut in line. In my younger years I would have been much more confrontational than I am now.
Now that I have a better understanding of how the world works. In 99 out of one hundred cases I would say nothing, she is looking for a confrontation and I’m NOT going to be the one to give it to her. However, in that one case out of one hundred I would have done the exact same thing this victim did. I would have made an indirect comment, aimed at her behavior, but not spoken directly to her.

I have watched the video several times.
In my opinion this is what happened.

One - When the girl friend started to yell and cuss the victim out the owner/manager stepped in and tried to kick her out. This gave the victim a feeling that the situation would be resolved; a person in a position of power had stepped in and would surely take care of the situation.
(-As soon as she began to yell I would have left – my experience tells me that NO good will ever come from any situation where someone has lost it so bad that they will yell in public like that)

Two – His back was turned when the big guy came in, that is the point when the girlfriend began to hit him. I do not think he knew the big guy was with her until it was far too late.

Three- He makes the dumbest mistake of his life While the big boyfriend is still in the first stages of confrontation he takes his eyes off of him – unbelievably starts to make a phone call and as many have said- gave the boyfriend the opportunity to just wail that first hit on him. Once the line was crossed and that first punch was delivered the rest were easier to throw. Instead of taking his eyes off of the boyfriend this is the time for him to have tried some passive/reconciliatory behavior, both hands up-palms out, looking the guy straight in the eyes, letting him know he has your full attention – and then side step to the door and getting the HELL out of there.

Using your brain and getting out of there is nothing to be ashamed of.

All in all this was a bad situation I think the victim should have made better choices, but I cant agree with those that have said that it was his fault and that he was “looking for it”

shugyo_sha
03-22-2005, 08:14 PM
2 wrongs don't make a right. All parties were in the wrong. Plus you have to ask yourself of all the people to cut in front of why him?

Secondly IMO if you sell enough tickets sooner or later your gonna have to put on a show. And in that location you never know who's gonna be attending.

And to me most importantly - All this could have been avoided - yes avoided had the victim kept quiet, and been humble.

Now being I'm new to the forum correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Aikido based off of non violence? If you are a practitioner are not to follow the way? Just a question as I see the comments of run - do this or do that-.

Avoiding confrontations is the best part of not having to fight one. But unfortunately in todays day and age, that is not the case or is it?

Ki No Nagare
03-28-2005, 12:08 PM
Hi there, this will be my first post.....like....ever,

I read a lot of other posts, not all of them....I wanted to post this today!! :p
The question was what I would do different because of my study in Aikido. First of all, because of my training I have gained more control over my emotions....and I certainly wouldn't look so agressive, because that will trigger other people's agression.
In other words my Shisei would be wrong. My mental condition would be wrong.

Second of all....as soon as I see someone coming so close, I would make room, (that pizza place was very small, so it would be difficult) but at all times I had to maintain my Ma ai. So that that first hit could've been bend.

And last but not least, Ki no Nagare....a flowing movement....not only with his attack, but also with her words....if he had said that she was right no matter what the hell she was babbling about...the conflict could've been avoided.

There you have my opinion....the three principals of Aikido

P.S:....hope this is a good first post.....and I'm sorry for any mistakes in my english

thomas_dixon
04-06-2005, 06:46 AM
2 wrongs don't make a right. All parties were in the wrong. Plus you have to ask yourself of all the people to cut in front of why him?

Secondly IMO if you sell enough tickets sooner or later your gonna have to put on a show. And in that location you never know who's gonna be attending.

And to me most importantly - All this could have been avoided - yes avoided had the victim kept quiet, and been humble.

Now being I'm new to the forum correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Aikido based off of non violence? If you are a practitioner are not to follow the way? Just a question as I see the comments of run - do this or do that-.

Avoiding confrontations is the best part of not having to fight one. But unfortunately in todays day and age, that is not the case or is it?

Why him? Because he told his fiance over the phone someone just cut in line and it'd be longer. And the woman heard him.

What are you talking about in your second paragraph? Think about how many people you interact with everyday, and then think about how many of them beat the crap out of you...

Not all situations can be avoided. This one? Yes. Someone jumping you while you're going to your car? No.

SmilingNage
04-06-2005, 08:33 AM
Its folly to predict what you/anyone would have done had this happened to you.

Its better to see all the factors that played into and triggered this event and learn from that. Understanding what happened and the roles played is far more important than spouting out bravado about how you/anyone could have taken over this parcel of time.

Alot can be gathered from this just by watching what happened. How you use what has been learned is up to you.
Recognizing the dangers is the first step to self defense.

rob_liberti
04-06-2005, 09:48 AM
Its folly to predict what you/anyone would have done had this happened to you.

Its better to see all the factors that played into and triggered this event and learn from that. Understanding what happened and the roles played is far more important than spouting out bravado about how you/anyone could have taken over this parcel of time.

Alot can be gathered from this just by watching what happened. How you use what has been learned is up to you.
Recognizing the dangers is the first step to self defense.

I don't mean to be disagreeable here William, but I don't follow your post. If you agree that "it's better to see all the factors that played into and triggered this event and learn from that" then why do you think "it's folly to predict what you/anyone would have done had this happened to you"? Isn't the point of learning from an experience that you can predict how you might handle yourself better if something like it happens again? That doesn't seem like folly to me. In this case, I thought the point of the thread was what would we have done (based on what we have already learned in our own lives) if we were in that situation, and how do do we think our aikido training my help (or not)?

My thoughts are that it is great to have such a wake up call to the level of drama and violence that could happen in a seemingly random situation. I don't know about bravado, but I do take responsibility for who takes control of any moment in time around me. If I get surprised, I think, shame on me and I really try to reflect on it. When I see something bad forming and am able to avoid it, I think good for me. In this particular case, as I'm sure you would agree reading about others experiences (bravado or not) becomes part of my experience (that I read them and thought about them) and that serves a pretty good purpose if you ask me.

Rob

Justin Gaar
04-06-2005, 10:16 AM
What seems wierd to me, and CMIW but i've only watched to movie 2 or 3 times. What seems wierd to me is that as far as i can tell there is a guy down on the floor and everybody is acting normally. And that woman. Aikido, self-defense only or not, i would not have the heart to pull any kind of techinique on that woman. Alas, I wouldn't know, I have not followed this situation closely enough.

Justin

thomas_dixon
04-06-2005, 02:02 PM
What seems wierd to me, and CMIW but i've only watched to movie 2 or 3 times. What seems wierd to me is that as far as i can tell there is a guy down on the floor and everybody is acting normally. And that woman. Aikido, self-defense only or not, i would not have the heart to pull any kind of techinique on that woman. Alas, I wouldn't know, I have not followed this situation closely enough.

Justin

This is the thing about this video that shocks everyone. It's not really the brutal assault, but the fact that people just look and do nothing. That the manager ran away, and that the people coming in during, and after the beating just stepped over him. And then as if to add insult to injury, they wait like 5 or 10 minutes to pick him up off the ground.

Adam Alexander
04-06-2005, 05:09 PM
...and after the beating just stepped over him. And then as if to add insult to injury, they wait like 5 or 10 minutes to pick him up off the ground.

I thought they were being nice and giving him a chance to keep a little dignity by getting up without assistance.

Adam Alexander
04-06-2005, 05:13 PM
Why him? Because he told his fiance over the phone someone just cut in line and it'd be longer. And the woman heard him. .

No, because he did it like a smarta**. Saying,"told his fiance" minimizes what he did.

Don't you think the way someone talks to you affects your interpretation? If so, let's stop making it out like this guy was just some poor schmuck who was without responsibility.

DaveO
04-06-2005, 05:40 PM
What seems wierd to me is that as far as i can tell there is a guy down on the floor and everybody is acting normally.
Justin

Several people have spoken about this, but realistically...

There is a man who is being badly mauled. There is also his attacker; who is clearly showing not only willingness but eagerness to do violence. He is a lot bigger than you - he's practically bigger than everyone else in the shop put together!
He's accompanied by a scarecely smaller 'girlfriend' who is also clearly nuts.
YOU are 10 feet away from the unfolding situation.
The question is...there is of course what you'd LIKE to do or what you THINK you should do, but what WOULD you do?

It's easy to condemn self-preservation until you yourself are involved. :)

Bodhi
04-06-2005, 06:15 PM
Most people, including martial artists, have no clue what to do when its for real, people freeze up all the time! It all boils down to whats worth fighting for AND how you have been training! If you have it clear in your mind exactly what you are and are not willing to commit to when its for real, then the decisions become easy! After you make that commitment then your mind is much more clear to act rather than freeze up! Bottom line is these people were shocked and froze up out of fear and not wanting to get involved so they let another man get beat down. Most likely they would have let the man be killed too, then said to others "well you would have done the same thing in that situation" Wonder if they would have done the same thing if it was a family member or close friend being beatin?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Cyrijl
04-12-2005, 05:03 PM
"Scarpino suffered a broken eye socket and nose, a concussion and a chipped tooth in the beating. Did he die? Does he have brain damage? So the beating wasn't a life or death thing. I've seen people with worse injuries from skateboarding."

This has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. NO apologies, no exceptions. Followed by:

"Okay- I just got the video to work and the only thing I can say, if you had to bet your life on one technique- a really hard ridge hand to the temple as a pre-emptive strike. Once that first punch got landed, the fight was over, and from his size I'm betting that guy who got his ass kicked can take one better than I can"

AND

"My dad always seems to tell me stories about his Hapkido/Judo instructor... So, I remember him telling me about his instructor disarming two men with pistols (I think they were training with the Police Department) before they even knew what hit them. It is possible, but keep in mind he was a master of Judo and Hapkido and a few other Korean arts."

Without further comment...here is my two cents. I am a middle class (albeit lower middle class) white guy. If i am in the city and this ghetto looking, nasty, tore up monster (who is black...yes i said it, black) starts creating a ruckus, I leave. And before everyone gets all upset and tries to call me racist or this or that. Look at yourselves. If you did not notice the color and the attire of the attacker...SHAME ON YOU. This does not mean that you have to be paranoid. But the victim obviously had no idea what he was getting into. If this had been a skinny blonde girl from malibu and her skrawny boyfriend from the burbs the outcome probably would have been different.

I used to go to alot of hardcore shows in my youth. If i saw a big white buy with a shaved head and jackboots on, with a white power insignia....i move away. I have walked out on shows of bands i really liked because I saw my surroundings and based on environmental factors decided it is better to go home and watch tv than to stay and watch a fight.

Each case, each place is different. If you are going to make smart remarks you should at least have some forethought as to whom you are talking to/about.

I would like to think I would stand up and say something during the attack...but I don't know. I would be lying if I said i knew for sure what I would do. I have stood up for people in fights before but they usually end before anything serious happens. Sometimes saying "Hey, what the hell you doin'?" is all you need.

Kevin Leavitt
08-02-2005, 03:37 PM
I remember that one!

I am making assumptions..so take this for what it is worth.

1. I assume that it was late at night...maybe 2 or so in the morning. Look like a crowd that had just come from the bars closing down.

2. Looks like a crowd that I would not hang around with.

Okay, It is easy to arm chair quarterback...but I believe I would have not found myself in that situation or would have walked away much earlier than that.

I once walked toward the door of a 7-11 late at night...only to immediately turn around and walk away cause I smelled something wasn't right. (cops came flying in a few minutes later).

I used to get into altercations all the time in my 20's. Usually I was trolling or in a place where I shouldn't have been.

I really think most fights are avoidable or mitigatable. That is the first step.

After that...make sure you have a plan. If you go to a rough neigborhood...have lots of friends with you (group).

If you are prone to putting yourself in a blind alley, late at night, with no way out..well Darwin does have a theory. (sorry!).

I did make a wrong turn down near Tuft's university once with my wife when I was young. We were scared shitless. I just acted like I knew what was going on, walked with a purpose, crossed the street avoiding alleys several times, and got out of there. Never stopped and looked at the street corner or arqued with my wife about being lost, or looked at a map or anything...just moved out in a general direction and kept going.

I don't think martial arts (empty hand) really as far as technique has much to offer in fight mitigation or avoidance...it is mainly timing, positioning, attitude, and ego.

Roy
08-03-2005, 11:12 PM
Larry Camejo,

Thank you, for the link to the Pizza Parlor attack! That was one big mother f%#&er!! I see the relevance to that video here. If the victim would have known Aikido, would it have helped him to defeat the guy, or would it have maid the big guy even more mad/insane? Are you really sure that big guy was really that slow? Sure, sure, I know the confident Jean De Rochefort with his theories would of came out victorious, but what about the rest of us?

dyffcult
08-05-2005, 12:41 AM
Back off thread...

Strangely enough, not one post on this thread (did not read the pizza thread–just watched the video) addressed the fact that it was the b&^tch girlfriend who started the fight.

She responded to his comment and got right in his face. She was aggressive, and probably relying upon her boyfriend to back her up.... I knew as soon as the guy leaned in to confront her that he was asking for trouble...

I don’t know what the guy could have done to appease her....but if he could have, I doubt the boyfriend would have attacked.

When I first watched the video, I couldn’t figure out why the woman freaked out so much. Why she attacked the way she did.

I’m female and it took me three times watching the start of the video to realize why that woman was so damn offended. The comment that he “might be here awhile” when she stepped into line was probably taken as a slam on her weight and ability to consume pizza – thereby requiring a longer ordering time and a longer prep time....

Perhaps the proper approach in the situation would have been to immediately apologize to the woman until she accepted it. Then again, if it took me three viewings to understand why she was offended, it’s unlikely someone on the spot would have figured it out enough to offer a sincere apology.

While I think that her boyfriend is an idiot buffoon who needs his ass kicked by a much smaller guy so that he will abandon his belief that might is right, that woman really needs some therapy sessions.

Back on track...my aikido training would have told me to leave the shop the moment the woman got belligerent with that guy standing behind her..... that sucker punch from nowhere would have left me out on the floor stone cold.

I don’t think that guy had any clue things would get physical...after all, he was dealing with a verbally abusive female (most men assume women are harmless – silly men:-) I do think that a well trained aikidoka, expecting that man to attack, would have been able to avoid the broken bones, etc...as well as held the guy until the police arrived.

Just my humble opinion.

Ketsan
08-05-2005, 02:16 PM
My training would have told me to take the dude down as soon as he stepped onto the scene. I would have tried to calm the situation down with the woman but her boyfriend would have hit the deck the moment I spotted him and before he had an idea about what was going on.
I've seen pleanty of situations were even when the conflict is resolved the boyfriend still feels the need to hit something, I wouldn't take the risk.

Adam Alexander
08-05-2005, 03:00 PM
Sure, sure, I know the confident Jean De Rochefort with his theories would of came out victorious, but what about the rest of us?


If you trained kata you'd come out on top. I believe that because I've been in nearly a dozen situations where something happens (not necessarily confrontations--someone falls toward you type stuff) where I reacted with reflex because the energy was Aikido-like.

Those reactions were totally before I even realized what was happening. If you train kata, then you'd of recognized the energy going back before thinking about it (exactly that happened to me only like six months into my training--before I'd of even thought that I had reflex:)).

L. Camejo
08-05-2005, 03:33 PM
I do think that a well trained aikidoka, expecting that man to attack, would have been able to avoid the broken bones, etc...as well as held the guy until the police arrived.
Hi Brenda,

That was a very interesting post. I have a question regarding the bolded text above. As far as holding the guy in place until the police came, how would one do that using typical Aikido pins while probably having to also deal with an attack by the same said girlfriend who started the whole thing? I don't think she'd just sit there and let it happen, knowing that her boyfriend was also an ex-con. Unless the boyfriend could be rendered unconscious and therefore unable to resist being pinned or "held there", then one would be in the position of having to deal with two larger, simultaneous aggressors, while attempting to apprehend the boyfriend instead of the much less challenging act of surviving the conflict and being able to walk away safe.

Imho attempting to control the big boy with his almost as big girlfriend still being able to attack (and put some good weight and power behind even an unskilled hit) could be an unnecessary risk given the degree of aggressive intent involved in the whole encounter. Imho your job is to survive and escape serious violence, it's the Police's to apprehend, which occurred afterwards anyway.

My training would have told me to take the dude down as soon as he stepped onto the scene. I would have tried to calm the situation down with the woman but her boyfriend would have hit the deck the moment I spotted him and before he had an idea about what was going on.
So iow you would have instead taken on Big Guy's role and then appeared on tape as someone who attacked a patron of the pizza parlor without any sort of provocation by your intended victim? I'm not sure how the laws operate in the U.K., but one needs to have a reasonable threat of serious, imminent danger to make a pre-emptive attack stick in court afterward, else the the person pre-emptively defending himself becomes the criminal and gets put away.

This is why I think that even though any MA training may address certain aspects of self defence, there are aspects of SD that are not often (if at all) addressed, which includes things like legal ramifications, psycho-chemical stress conditioning, understanding the force continuum, de-escalation and a host of other stuff that have nothing to do with physical technique or weapons, which is to be the last resort.

Some often say "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" but it depends on the individual and if he/she is able to survive prison life, else being carried by 6 will only be delayed.;) Imho SD is not about being the best fighter or a bada$$ but using one's training, knowledge and instincts to keep oneself safe from the dangers of life itself.

Just my thoughts. I reserve the right to be wrong.
LC:ai::ki:

Jetcar
08-09-2005, 12:51 PM
I think the best self defense would be to call in all pizza orders from a safe distance! (like, from home, or in the car outside the shop, and then just wait fifteen minutes and go in and get it.....)
;)

rob_liberti
08-09-2005, 03:25 PM
As far as holding the guy in place until the police came, how would one do that using typical Aikido pins while probably having to also deal with an attack by the same said girlfriend who started the whole thing?FYI: I've seen Takeda sensei just pile up multiple attackers and pin them all together. He's a LOT better than I am so don't ask me how he does it!

I train with yokomen all of the time, and I think the way that punch was coming in, I would just end up smashing the guy in the face (which I believe some people call shomen ate). If the punch had more of an arc to it, and the guy responded by trying to block my hands smashing his face, then I could do a lot of yokomen techniques. Otherwise, I think it just comes down to he's hooking, you straight punch, when he's straight punching, you hook (or move of course!).

Rob

L. Camejo
08-09-2005, 04:47 PM
FYI: I've seen Takeda sensei just pile up multiple attackers and pin them all together. He's a LOT better than I am so don't ask me how he does it!
Of course piling up and pinning multiple compliant Uke in the dojo or demo is a world of difference away from pinning and restraining a larger, uncompliant, seriously driven attacker for an extended period of time while also dealing with an almost equally sized and driven accomplice.

I like Carl's idea on calling for Pizza from outside though. Evade and escape.:)
LC:ai::ki:

SMART2o
02-17-2006, 06:04 PM
Here's what an office mate asked me: what exactly would I do as a bystander. My answer was

a) use a cell phone (from the appropriate distance) to call 911
b) loudly start telling the attacker to leave that man alone
c) try to inlist two or three other men to toss that nut's butt out the door.

The problem with b and c is that you don't know for sure if the guy is armed! Even if 3 of you approach him, if he pulls out a gun and starts shooting, everyone in the place is now at risk.

What would YOU do as a bystander?

Ron

Option B may get you your ass handed to you as well. As far as option C goes, my money would be on the big guy to handle all 3 of you.

nathansnow
02-17-2006, 10:31 PM
Yes, the guy was huge.... he was probably very strong.... and he was clearly ready to fight, but this does not mean if you are smaller than he is that you will automatically lose!! Someone that was well trained and ready to fight as well could have just as easily destroyed him. A well place blow to the neck, groin, or knees can cripple big men as well!! Also, don't forget the lessons taught in The Princess Bride!!!! Andre the Giant was much larger, but a good choke can be your best friend! hahaha (I love that movie) If he, or someone more prepared, had been able to duck and weave a bit and gotten to the side or behind him, a solid choke could have put him out in seconds.
That's why we train, you never know when and you never know where, it just happens and you hope you're prepared and willing!

nathansnow
02-17-2006, 11:02 PM
I happened to read back over some of these posts saw the discussion on guns... why train so hard in the martial arts if you're just going to carry around a glock??? Whip it out and if they don't go running for the hills, pull the trigger!
This guy did have some weapons with him that he didn't even realize. The cell phone he was talking on... that can be tossed at someones head to distract and draw a reaction that can be exploited. From the cloths he was wearing, he most likely had a belt on... I always wear one! I had a buddy that was confronted by 4 guys. While he kept them busy talking, he undid his belt. When they closed in, he snapped the belt buckle end at their faces, sending a couple of them ducking a scattered. The others thought better of it and didn't want to catch a belt buckle in the eye!

Edwin Neal
02-18-2006, 09:50 AM
there has been some very good discussion of this scene, and i agree with many of the different takes and analyses of it... my thoughts are similar on some points...
1. Cell phone guy clearly helped to escalate the situation... too bad for him he did not engage his brain and a little humility... 'bumping chests' and slamming the table ramped the situation up, and put him in a worse situation... PRIDE/EGO will get you killed...
2. The 'best' responses IMO are to leave... when the woman turned on the manager, and before/as the boyfriend came through the door... i would have even held the door for him, and called 911 from outside... even after the boyfriend came in he and the woman were focussed on the manager and there was room and opportunity to escape...
3. Cell Phones!!! don't walk/drive/LIVE with one attached permanently to your ear... awareness as has been discussed is your most potent weapon... hang the damn thing up!
4. Ma ai and evasion... cell phone guy 'let' the woman strike him repeatedly... this only encouraged the boyfriend... move!!! a moving target is harder to hit and must be 'pursued'...
5. Your actions and words can have unintended consequences, even relatively 'innocent' remarks can be taken way out of context, and start a 'weird' chain of events... a good example of this is the 'James Smith Thread"... best not to say or do things that may potentially start a bad situation, especially if it may turn violent...
6. Once it starts YOU must take decisive action/reaction... all martial artist should have a basic understanding of reasonable self defense in a legal context ie. Self Defense is the right to protect oneself and others against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.
7. As Mr. Ledyard and others have stated a good 'offense' is the best defense in this situation... atemi waza... apply liberally... repeat as necessary... move to a better position ie Shikaku... clinching a bigger opponent from the rear quarter is a definate advantage... ever seen a dog chase its own tail? i would probably try to keep the woman between us if possible/feasible... and if necessary atemi her too... women ARE just as deadly as men... don't underestimate anyone...

i could probably say alot more about it but much has been covered by others... aikido is a 'martial' art, don't be hesitant/fearful of applying it martially...

Mato-san
02-21-2006, 10:00 AM
The situation was getting hot, it was already warm, our uke was busy making communications on his cell, he turned his back on the situation whilst it was heating up (probably calling for back up) not much room to create distance,not many options ,but I think his cell phone should have dropped in priority as soon as the situation displayed any heat, then his head would have been focused on better ways of achieving his goal. Classic street brawl.I tryed to keep my english as simple as could be. But that my friends is MHO. He got belted. Our attacker served justice. You could think of what could have been but I say move on.

roosvelt
02-21-2006, 12:45 PM
Suppose a bystander pulled out a gun, and shoot the big guy on the leg, what would happen to the bystander? Suppose the pizza manager charged the big guy with a tomato knife, what whould happen to the manager?

Mark Mueller
02-21-2006, 02:09 PM
I know the attacker got a jail sentence for the attack.....and I know the woman "Prestia SIms" was scheduled to go to court for her role. Did anyone hear about her court appearance and subsequent sentencing? I have not been able to find anything.

Ron Tisdale
02-21-2006, 02:39 PM
Sims says she pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor charges in August in order to avoid a felony charge. She served six months in jail, and was released in February.

Video

Man Beats Pizza Parlor Customer

But she says now prosecutors have slapped her with an assault charge, and she is scheduled to go on trial March 14.

Sims said she feels like she has already served her time, and shouldn't face more charges.

She also said she accepts responsibility for what happened that night, and apologizes to Scarpino for what happened to him. As of Feb. 25th, 2005.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4234690/detail.html

Mark Mueller
02-22-2006, 07:38 AM
Ron,


Thanks for the info!


BTW, Nice meeting you at the Ellis Amdur seminar (If you remember).


Regards,

Mark

Justin Gaar
02-22-2006, 08:05 AM
What is up with all these revived threads? Geez. First the one with joeysola now this.

Carlos Rivera
02-22-2006, 09:47 AM
Here's some things that have worked for me in my line of work, where I have met my share of "society's finest." OK, I'm in law enforcement and believe Aikido works. We can all "Monday Morning Quarterback" but the best thing is not to get into the situation at all, but once you do:


1. Observe behavior and environment- don't get distracted (cell phones, radios, etc. are your worst enemy in some cases).
2. Look around, be aware- be always vigilant!!
3. Avoid the incident (you never know what people carry, i.e. weapons) or negotiate a peaceful settlement.
4. If you cannot avoid the incident, be prepared to act swiftly and decisively
5. If there's more aggressors than you can take, get out of the pit, don't do the "John Wayne" thing and try to become a crime statistic
6. If it's your life on the line, use whatever there is available to place a barrier between you and the attacker(s) or throw a distraction their way and then get out
7. Don't start anything you cannot or will not be willing to finish

And by the way delivery pizza tastes better than being whacked by Bubba the Thug!! :cool:

Ron Tisdale
02-22-2006, 10:59 AM
Hi Mark, nice meeting you as well.

Frankly, I'd rather see revived topics than new threads about the same stuff.

Best,
Ron

Robert Broyles
02-22-2006, 08:10 PM
Poor guy..
ouch! That looked like it hurt!!!