Killing versus Capturing

[Johnlogic121]

The premise of most jujutsu fighting is to restrain the opponent in some kind of immobilizing hold. The theory is that capturing someone is not only more humane than killing them, but generally that it is easier, too. Wrestling is an ancient art that usually results in a capture, too, even though some wrestling manuevers can break bones or suffocate somebody. My impression is that in modern times it is usually easier to kill somebody than to capture them. In different time periods, people had reservations about killing that were so high that in Napoleonic Warfare most soldiers would intentionally miss the targets they were shooting at because they didn't want to kill anybody. They have done studies of Napoleonic battles and discovered that a thousand bullets were fired for every shot that injured somebody. Nowadays, after the World Wars have introduced the concept of total war, human life is considerably cheaper. What does the forum think about how easy it is to kill rather than to capture? What does this distinction imply about how soldiers should conduct themselves - is it more efficient to seek captives or kill everybody whn you confront them in close quarters combat? Does your martial art emphasize going for a knockout or kill result, or a grappling capture? Is it always more humane and appropriate to go for the capture, or is there a time when killing the attacker is called for? Please feel free to take this discussion wherever your comments lead you. -JL

[Kagerou]

Nowadays, after the World Wars have introduced the concept of total war, human life is considerably cheaper. -JL

Wha...??

Regarding your main question, restraining for capture may be more "humane" as you put it. But how long can you hold for? Are you actively calling for help? Are you isolated?

If you're in a situation where you're isolated and fighting, it isn't in your best interest to restrain. Smartest thing to my reckoning is to use your training for blunt-force trauma, KO, and escape for help.

I don't see a KO as equating to death, as you seem to be implying.

As for the cheapening of human life on the basis of modern warfare, I think you're way off base.

[bushido_man96]

I have never seen those numbers on the Napoleonic Wars...I don't know about those. What was your source?

As for capture vs. killing...this is mainly a question that will be approached by law enforcement or military. For law enforcement, capture is going to be the prevailing option, depending on the level of force the perp is using. As far as the military is concerned, it will depend on the objective of the mission.

As for the many standard, run-of-the-mill, everyday Martial Artists, like those of us on this forum, many of us are more concerned with escape and survive as opposed to capturing someone, or thinking about killing them. About the only time the thought of killing would come about would depend again on the level of force used by the attacker; armed, threatening a family member or friend's life, etc.

[tallgeese]

Agreed, the question comes down to what your misson specific parameters are, bushido man summed up the professional side of things nicely.

I'd say that the question for most folks, even to some degree profesisonal responders, is: What focre option is needed for survival? The answer to that question will dictate your set of responses.

As to the number mention in the OP, I can't speak for the Napolionic Wars but Grossman cites reserach by a Civil War researcher Paddy Griffith that there was "regimental hit rate of one or two men per minute in firefights of the black-powder era" (On Killing, p24 1st paperback ed.)

This can be attributed in part to the diffuculting in reloading those weapons and the style of warfare. There is also an interesting discussion in this part of the book about muskest that had been reloaded multilple times, yet never fired, a fact that Grossman used to illustrate man's inherant resistance to killing.

Further, Grossman talks about SLA MArshall's works on WWII firing rates in On Combat. Apparently, Marsahll found that only about 15-20 percent of WWII combatants actually fired their weapons at an exposed enemy (On Combat, p74 1st ed.)

In fairness, Grossman does admit that Marshall's work is not up to modern methodology.

As we progress along, Grosman's research indicates that by Korea we had increased the firing rate to about 55% and that by Vietnam we had again increase, this time to 90-95% (On Killing, p.35)

I have yet to see any stats on the Gulf War or beyond, however, Grossman does point out that the British, with no air support or heavy artillary, were able to win the Fauklands War against superior numbers on the ground, and with similar weapons, due to an increse in moder training methods (On Combat, p74).

Some of the high rates of firing in Vietnam may be attributable to the advent of the automatic rifle. However, one has to look at the change in training methodology that took place. There was an advent of realistic targets used to train soldiers. So instead of training soldiers to shoot at little bull's eye circles, they fired at targets that looked like people. The theory is that this made them more conditioned to respond with deadly force.

This is a concept that has been adopted by law enfocement as well for several years. It is also pretty much mandated now by what the courts have found in regard to training offerers to respond against realistic targets of both the shoot and no shoot variety. (I don't have the reference near me now, I think it's somone v. Ohio).

So, in a large sense, I don't think that it's a cheapening of human life at all. I think that it's simple the advent of superior training methods to train people to react to deadly force, allowing them to respond in kind with great efficiency.

[bushido_man96]

Superior training methods, combined with the advance in technology, I would guess.

I have heard alot about Grossman's books, and I look forward to reading them eventually.

[Kajukenbopr]

The cost of human life has been dropping considerably due to cultural phenomenon where the whole country is conditioned to experience death of various people all over for all kinds of reasons. When this phenomenon occurs, murder is not out of our scope of "normal" things that happen every day, in fact, we tend to rationalize it, give it a reason for happening to make it more justifiable.

We all agree that killing is wrong, however, due to the bombardment of news about murders, assaults, armed robbery, drugs, etc, make us not only disregard human life as precious, but also, to live in constant fear of every possible attacker out in the world. We dont want to be victims, we dont want to be hurt, we dont want to lose our private property, TO ANYONE. and we shouldnt.

Back to the question: although the situation might arise when you could decide ur attackers fate, and you could just hold the opponent, our fear and anger will make us give our strongest reaction: some will result in a KO or a death, and some will result in holding someone or a broken limb, or a suffocation. If you are calm enough, you can decide not to let it escalate, though like its been said here already: you cant hold someone forever... and it wont always be seen in good eyes that you knocked out the living daylights out of ur attacker.

[tallgeese]

Desenstitization has certainly occured in our society. Though I don't yet think that it's to the degree that some are afraid. We still live in an incredabily civilited time, espically here in the west, compared to the bulk of our history.

I do agree we should do better to limit the availibilty of violent material, espically to young people, but again, that's a different topic.

As to the end game of the fight, again, I think that the situation will dictate the respone you give. As will the responses that you've conditioned your body to make.

[Bushido-Ruach]

I agree with Tallgeese, do what the situation demands.

Having said that, I am looking at this from a law enforcement point of view, and sometimes.....most of the time, actually.....its very hard to tell what the situation is. You could be held at knife-point by someone who is only claiming to want to rob you....until he gets ticked off because you have very little, if any, cash in your wallet. You could be jumped by five gang members looking to make a name for themselves by killing you....you just have no way of knowing exactly what's going to happen, or what someone's mind set is.

Taking all of this into consideration, my response would most likely be crippling or killing, especially if it has to do with gang members because if you don't they usually keep harassing you from that point on until something explodes. So my point of view is.....just let me explode now while I have the law on my side.

I could say more, but I'll stop there......

[tallgeese]

Agreed, situations change rapidly. More rapidly than most would suspect I think. Still, the best you can do is react to the circumstances as best you can and train to keep a fluid mind. This will help one adapt as needed. Additoinally, training with simulations that allow for a spontaneous threat and non-designated responses will also train one's mind to this facet of combat.

[ps1]

In the end, my goal is to go home! I will do what is necessary to meet that goal. Period. I don't think, "I'm gonna kill this guy." Rather, I simply defend until I feel the threat is gone.