Deadly techniques - are you prepared?

[bushido_man96]

Another point - I wonder what "deadly technicians" would do in a situation where the attacker's intentions are not clear. Are you going to tend to rely on deadly techniques, and kill someone who was not a real threat to your life, or, not use them and be incapable of defending against dangerous but less than lethal situations? I see so many martial artists saying "Oh, I would just rip his throat out or gouge his eyes" or whatever, and that's fine if there is reason to believe the other guy wants to kill you. If not, wouldn't you be better served by incapacitating but non-lethal techniques?

This is where the knowledge of the Use of Force continuum comes into play, and being able to justify your actions as well. It isn't about just training the techniques; it is also about training yourself mentally and emotionally to know if and when it is necessary to use them.

[bushido_man96]

What are some other opinions on this? What do you think of when you hear the term "deadly technique?"

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess.

I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

[ps1]

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess.

I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

Looks like we have similar views here.

[USCMAAI]

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess.

I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

Looks like we have similar views here.

I agree with both of you on this. I say a fight is a contest were there is a "winner" and a "loser". Self-defense is a individualized war, you survive or you die. Fights are generally by mutual consent (which by the way eliminates all claims of justifiable force from a leagal stand point), and self-defense is "defending" against victimization.

[Kajukenbopr]

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess.

I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

Looks like we have similar views here.

I agree with both of you on this. I say a fight is a contest were there is a "winner" and a "loser". Self-defense is a individualized war, you survive or you die. Fights are generally by mutual consent (which by the way eliminates all claims of justifiable force from a leagal stand point), and self-defense is "defending" against victimization.

however, if you snap someone's neck instead of just knocking him out or breaking a limb, it would be considered excesive force. you defend yourself but you end up in jail. even if only for a year.

if it was an accident on the other hand... like someone falling over, or traffic getting in the way, MAYBE you could get out of it.

[USCMAAI]

When I think of "deadly techniques," I think of very debilitating moves, like striking the neck, digging into the eyes, or maybe even using your surroundings (oncoming traffic?) if need be. Breaking limbs could fall under the category as well, I guess.

I think that there is a difference between a fight and self-defense. By the word "fight," I picture 2 guys dancing around each other, trying to pick each other apart. By "self-defense," I picture a vicous attack against the (perceived) unprepared, and then trying to survive the situation by any means necessary.

Looks like we have similar views here.

I agree with both of you on this. I say a fight is a contest were there is a "winner" and a "loser". Self-defense is a individualized war, you survive or you die. Fights are generally by mutual consent (which by the way eliminates all claims of justifiable force from a leagal stand point), and self-defense is "defending" against victimization.

however, if you snap someone's neck instead of just knocking him out or breaking a limb, it would be considered excesive force. you defend yourself but you end up in jail. even if only for a year.

if it was an accident on the other hand... like someone falling over, or traffic getting in the way, MAYBE you could get out of it.

Agreed! That is why it is very important that self-defense instructors teach a use of force continuum in their ciriculum. In my school I teach levels of threats and levels of response. I have used lethal force in a self-defense situation, and because of the way we train it stood up in court. I have also had students who have been aquitted based on our use of force training, and have also won 3 civil suits as well. Knowing the self-defense laws in your area and training with those in mind are absolutely necessary! The people who say "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" probably wouldn't need to make such remarks if they trained properly, and I would bet most of them have not spent anytime as an inmate in a prison (not much fun).

[The BB of C]

No. I am not prepared.

My Kuk Sool Won instructors have tried to teach me techniques that would kill and I refused to even practice them.

I believe it is always wrong to kill. Of course, when it comes to military and law enforcement, there's nothing I can do or say about that. Which is why I would only train people who plan on living normal civilian lives.

I call it 'Code: B' (preservation of human life). This is the code that makes or breaks people as far as qualifying for me to train them or not.

To fulfill it, you must be willing to never cause permanent damage or kill anyone in a conflict.

This instantly excludes people who plan on joining the military, becoming police officers. Some of the people who work with me on developing our style have suggested adding lawyers, politicians, and some types of doctors to the list. But we are not sure yet.

This code also means that you preserve yourself as a human. It teaches the people who train this style that if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, to remove themselves and/or whoever else may be involved in the situation as quickly as possible without anyone getting seriously injured.

It means that in fights, you cause pain without damage. The worst thing we'd ever teach is to break an arm or a leg, dislocate an elbow or a knee. We also would teach and learn what we call 'submissionary' pressure points. Pressure points that when hit or pressed on, cause minimal amounts of damage that only hurts and doesn't last longer than 10-20 minutes. Or if being pressed on, only hurt as long as they're being pressed on, also with no real damage applied.

It also has a moral and ethnic point of view to it. I believe that if you kill someone; you are no better as a person than the person who was trying to kill you was. Or if you kill someone for killing someone else; you are no better than them.

I presume we all know about the deadliness of styles like Jeet Kune Do, Commando Krav Maga, and Ninjitsu. Just keep the effectiveness of those styles in mind for a few minutes for me, and you'll understand my next statement.

The goal of Cannon Style is to one day be as effective as Ninjitsu, without the deadliness. We want someday for one of our trainees to be able to be jumped by someone on the street, multiple attackers, lead pipes, hammers, bricks, guns, and any mix of the above and be able to get out with not a single person being truely injured. If someone should get injured during the conflict, we would probably seek medical attention for them as well. Pain without damage. That's one of our fight mottos.

I am not ready for deadly techniques. I refuse to learn them. I refuse to teach them. I refuse to teach anyone who would be willing to use them.

If anyone has a question for me about this, please private message me.

[ps1]

To fulfill it, you must be willing to never cause permanent damage or kill anyone in a conflict.

This code also means that you preserve yourself as a human. It teaches the people who train this style that if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, to remove themselves and/or whoever else may be involved in the situation as quickly as possible without anyone getting seriously injured.

How does this work with teaching children? They don't know what they'll grow up to be or do.

I don't know any good or high quality teachers that would disagree with getting out of a dangerous situation as the FIRST option. However, if that is impossible, and pressure points are known to be extremely ineffective in life/death struggles, how do you teach your students to cope with that situation? If a student's child's life is in danger, should they allow their child to be killed just to avoid breaking the code? If so, how is allowing someone to be killed/injured considered any different from doing it themselves?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your beliefs are incorrect. Quite the contrary actually. I think you have the a great moral standard I just wonder if it's realistic or applicable to a life/death situation.

Also, I chose not to PM you on this because I think it will make for a great discussion. Hope you don't take offense to that.

[Kajukenbopr]

To fulfill it, you must be willing to never cause permanent damage or kill anyone in a conflict.

This code also means that you preserve yourself as a human. It teaches the people who train this style that if they find themselves in a dangerous situation, to remove themselves and/or whoever else may be involved in the situation as quickly as possible without anyone getting seriously injured.

How does this work with teaching children? They don't know what they'll grow up to be or do.

I don't know any good or high quality teachers that would disagree with getting out of a dangerous situation as the FIRST option. However, if that is impossible, and pressure points are known to be extremely ineffective in life/death struggles, how do you teach your students to cope with that situation? If a student's child's life is in danger, should they allow their child to be killed just to avoid breaking the code? If so, how is allowing someone to be killed/injured considered any different from doing it themselves?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your beliefs are incorrect. Quite the contrary actually. I think you have the a great moral standard I just wonder if it's realistic or applicable to a life/death situation.

Also, I chose not to PM you on this because I think it will make for a great discussion. Hope you don't take offense to that.

its a bit extreme to say that anyone would let their children die.

they would probably however, avoid having to kill the person: knocking out or crippling the opponent is a better outcome for them than killing an attacker

[bushido_man96]

The goal of Cannon Style is to one day be as effective as Ninjitsu, without the deadliness. We want someday for one of our trainees to be able to be jumped by someone on the street, multiple attackers, lead pipes, hammers, bricks, guns, and any mix of the above and be able to get out with not a single person being truely injured. If someone should get injured during the conflict, we would probably seek medical attention for them as well. Pain without damage. That's one of our fight mottos.

That is a pretty tall order there. About the only way to get out of something like that is to talk your way out, or run. I don't think anyone could survive an altercation like that, if it came to blows.

The thing about self-defense is that there are so many variables that you may or may not have to account for. If you train to slap people who attack you on the wrist, they are going to sluff it off, and then do some real damage to you. It is like I mentioned earlier; if you try to fight someone who is trying to kill you, you will most likely be in for a rude awakening.