Would you kill someone using Aikido if you had to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph,

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

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

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

Boon.

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

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

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

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

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

And train your body, spirit and mind accordingly.

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

Sincerely
Jjo

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Civilian, military or Police...there is no difference I believe in the core of it all.

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

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

The above made me think...

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

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

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

fwiw,
d

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

Wacky California laws.

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

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

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

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

Boon.

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

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

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

David Valadez wrote: The above made me think... I'm not sure how relative it is here, but maybe some folks might find this fact interesting: In California, if you punch or kick someone (say, one or two times), and you are not covered by any self-defense issues, you are in violation of penal code 242 - battery, a misdemeanor. If you throw them, once, or twice, you are in violation of penal code 245 - assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. It seems the law, out here at least, recognizes what many aikidoka all over the world may not - that throwing someone has much greater potential for causing serious bodily injury or death than striking someone. fwiw, d

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

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

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

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

Boon.

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

Fear of the unknown?

Xu Wenfung wrote: Joseph, I do not doubt that if the above circumstances were to occur, the uke may be fatally injured. However, I argue that ushiro-nage per se is not a fatal technique. Just like a simple Deashi Harai (leg trip/sweep) is not a fatal technique per se. But if the circumstances that the uke were to fall down on a hard rocky surface and subsequently broke his neck and died, it is purely circumstantial. Joseph, when I heard about killing techniques, I am thinking about the fabled T3H D34DLY (TM) dim-mak, one punch kill etc. Looking back at the years of aikido training I had done, I was never taught any of these. Hence my earlier assertion, on where does some of you guys learn these T3H D34DLY (TM) stuff. Boon.

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

OSU

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clark Wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry did not mean to misquote you.

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

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

This is why we have things such as PTSD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appreciate your patience and taking the time to discuss!

Clark,

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

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

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

Over generalization I know!

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

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

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

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

Maybe you are right after all!

Best,
Ron

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

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

Best,
Ron

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

IMHO, the training teaches one how to do it, not how to live with it.
And yes, the training is worthwhile, it keeps one alive.

True Lynn, True.

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

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

Ron Tisdale wrote: Kevin, if the LEO / Military folks train for this stuff, then why the PTSD? I mean, if all this training is worth while? Nice to see some usefull stuff come out of this topic... Best, Ron

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

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

Best,

FL