SD Question - Pizza Parlor Attack

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.

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?

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 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. 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

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!

MT

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.

Larry Camejo wrote: But on the bright side he will be $25,000 richer soon. 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.

Paul Nowicki wrote: 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.

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.

Paul Nowicki wrote: 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.

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.

Matthew Gano wrote: 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."

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!

I'm bummed out because the stupid video won't play...

"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.

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

Ron Tisdale wrote: 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.

James Bostwick wrote: 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?

Don J. Modesto wrote: 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?

James Bostwick wrote: 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.

James Bostwick wrote: 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.

Don J. Modesto wrote: 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.

Vincent Paglia wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Mitch Kuntz wrote: 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.