"One Punch One Kill" Concept

[bushido_man96]

Hi guys & gals...I don't think we really answered the question here...or at least one of the questions. Many believe in one-hit kills because they do exist - however difficult they may be to execute properly, they do still exist...

...One-hit kills DO exist...a basic one is the temple or the middle of the forehead or the base of the skull...

My question is, how much actual scientific evidence is out there to support that these are actually "killing" techniques?

[tallgeese]

I'm sure that all things being equal, none of us would want to take a life.

However, given a situation where you have a legitimate choice to employ those tactics, the escalation probibly hasn't been up to us. The decision to elevate to those levels of force by our opponant. At this point, I can say that winning, surviving, what ever you want to call it takes precedence over everything else. Including preservation of life.

It's easier to accept this fact now, when you have time to mull over the implications and their aftermath than at the time of the incident. Most research now indicates that acceptance of this fact, rather than reliacnce on non-lethal thought, helps one employ deadly force tactics at the time of the incident and helps in dealing with the incident afterwards.

A bit off topic and I aplolgize, but there is a very strong arugment for accepting the outcomes of deadly force and mentally acclimitizing one's self to the idea of it. Whether it comes in the forme of a single stirke or series of movmemts.

[tallgeese]

As to bushido man's post-

none that I'm aware of. If it's out there I have yet to see it. Granted, that's got to be a pretty hard study to pull off, I wouldn't volunteer .

And finding the data for a survey on blunt force trauma deaths would be an extensive undertaking.

[NightOwl]

There are one hit deaths out there :http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_female_boxing_death_occurs_in_US_sanctioned_match

However that is extremely rare. Of all the thousands of boxing matches, to have a death pop up and be a big deal means that it is not common at all. Consider all of the blunt force and KOs people take in combat sports, and really there are more deadly incidents in football.

I think you could look at the phrase as not 'killing' your opponent, but incapacitating them with only one blow, either by KO or TKO. However that isn't a saying I personally would ascribe to.

[joesteph]

From that Wikipedia entry:

"Nobody thought it was a very hard blow," said Jeanne DePriest, manager of Zerlentes' team. "We've been talking to people all day trying to find out what happened." Zerlentes was wearing her required protective headgear at the time of the accident.

She was wearing "required protective headgear"; this is a factor that can't be overlooked. It also says in the entry:

She expired . . . due to blunt-force trauma injuries received to the head, resulting in a blood clot on the brain.

Within the article, it locates the point of impact as the left temple.

If you put Becky Zerlentes's name into a search engine, and even into the New York Times, all you get is news at the time. There are no follow-up entries. There's nothing more in the Times about the death. This leaves it as a guess regarding a buildup of head/brain trauma.

I don't think she really died as a result of a single blow to the head, but as a result of a number of blows from previous fights and this one. It shows, though, that even "protective" gear has a limit to its protective abilities.

[Traymond]

The "one hit one kill" with karate Do originated in Okinawa, when King Sho Hashi came around and stripped all the weapons, the Karate-Ka had to improvise to fight against weapons, even if they were against Bo staffs, im sure it would be better to get your head chopped off than to have it smacked with a Bo staff...

But anyways it originated so that they could kill their opponent with one hit, alot of times this did not happen, and alot of Karate-ka's dies. It wasn't until Bushi Matayoshi killed a samurai with a sai, that people truly emphasized the one hit one kill theory.

I think for hitting the makiwara with one strike will alot of force, is just a conditioning practice now a days, but it is still good to know just in case someone with a Katana is running towards you, you can stop him in his tracks...

BUt I also agree with bushido Man about trying to work on a chain of attacks so you can throw a very strong flurry at your opponent.

You dont learn all martial arts to kill someone, you learn it for the mere benefit of knowing it, and to honor the past...

[joesteph]

I'm sure that all things being equal, none of us would want to take a life.

However, given a situation where you have a legitimate choice to employ those tactics, the escalation probibly hasn't been up to us. The decision to elevate to those levels of force by our opponant.

I think you could look at the phrase as not 'killing' your opponent, but incapacitating them with only one blow, either by KO or TKO. However that isn't a saying I personally would ascribe to.

These are good insights. You don't start the altercation, you don't even want one; it's forced on you. You resist and attempt to leave/escape, but your attacker won't permit it. The level of violence exists in direct proportion to what level your attacker raises it. You do not seek to kill but to use techniques to defend your body and likely your life. The KO or TKO, no matter how few or many blows are performed, is objectively preferred, but subjectively may not be up to you--or the ability of your attacker to withstand the blow(s).

A woman seized by her attacker may be in a position to ram her palm heel up against his jaw; he doesn't let go and she keeps striking her would-be rapist to free herself. In the alley that he's pulled her into, he slips as she strikes, and he hits his head against a wall. She's released and runs. It may be that he's unconscious; it may be that he's dead. One man may survive this, while another may not. The level of violence he chose to reach means that his KO or death is the result of his own misadventure.

As for the woman who was attacked, she's a victim no matter how effectively she fought to escape. She never wanted the altercation, let alone the level of violence.

[wtKempostudent]

What we seem to be examining here is a mindset.

The "one hit kill" principle can be trained in different mindsets. I know that I personally train to attempt to knock out with most strikes, though I train with the understanding that I will likely be required to use more than one or two strikes to end a fight. In fact, most of my no mind techniques usually utilize 8, 10, 12, or even 15 or 16 strikes before I move to finish.

I also train with the mentality that I never know who has my opponent's back or what they have in their pocket, and so I do not train to strike and run; I train to put my opponent to the floor and finish him/her. A "finish" in my mindset of training means that my attacker can physically no longer fight or chase after me. If this means that they threw one punch and I threw 8, took them to the floor, and broke their knee, that's ok with me, because I now know that they can't fight with me anymore. If I have a legitimate reason to believe my attacker has a gun, then I will not stop until I have it in my controlled possession or they are knocked out.

Back to the "one hit kill." I do believe, though I've never witnessed, that there exists the possibility to kill an opponent with one hit. I know from experience that one hit can end a fight and knock someone out if it's in the right spot or the striker is a bit lucky. As I said though, I don't train with the expectation that this will happen, and I think it is very dangerous to train with any kind of expectations like that. I do, however, train with the mentality that I should be using my power strikes to attempt to end the fight, and of course my mentality is to never start a fight, but to always finish a fight.

[Bushido-Ruach]

Hi guys & gals...I don't think we really answered the question here...or at least one of the questions. Many believe in one-hit kills because they do exist - however difficult they may be to execute properly, they do still exist...

...One-hit kills DO exist...a basic one is the temple or the middle of the forehead or the base of the skull...

My question is, how much actual scientific evidence is out there to support that these are actually "killing" techniques?

There is evidence but most of it follows principles of meridians and acupuncture, acupressure points along the meridians...and since western medicine denies such things and calls them myths, they really don't explore them very much. There are points where when hit, shock the heart into stopping, which is where we get our modern day heart starting techniques from (pounding the chest of a heart attack victim, for example, to re-start the heart). There are others, based upon artery attacks and such. The problem is, there has been much damage to the idea of such techniques from movies making them to be super-techniques that they aren't.

But they are out there. The best treatise I have come across in dealing with them is by Erle Montaigue and Wally Simpson out of the UK. Wally is an acupuncturist who knows his stuff, and he collaborates with Mr. Montaigue to put together the first english manuscript on such points.

[Bushido-Ruach]

(I know it is possible to hit in the right places and cause serious damage, but who actually wants to hurt or kill people and get thrown in jail. (emphasis added)

Hi guys & gals...I don't think we really answered the question here...or at least one of the questions. . . .

One-hit kills DO exist...a basic one is the temple or the middle of the forehead or the base of the skull...however, as someone so avidly recognized, you must be willing to suffer the consequences of utilizing such a technique - both in your own mind and any legal implications of applying deadly force if such force isn't deemed a necessity for self-defense situations. (emphasis added)

Since you returned to the OP, Bushido-Ruach, I think it's important that we re-examine the words I put into bold in both the OP and your posting.

That OP bold can be seen as "who wants to hurt/kill and be jailed for it" or "who wants to hurt/kill" and "who in his right mind wants to go to jail." I think it's the latter, that there are two questions here, and, looking back at your posting, I think you've treated it as two, referring to "in your own mind" separate from "legal implications." You've also got that very important caveat, "if such force isn't deemed a necessity."

Personally, I expand "kill" to "harm" and "maim." They can also weigh on the mind and/or have legal implications.

Let's limit the setting to one attacker, not multiple, to simplify. It isn't open season if someone accosts me. I have to size up the situation and determine the appropriate course of action. I may have to strike first, as his very accosting me can be considered an assault; it might be that he put a hand on me. Examining just what I've been exposed to as an orange belt, I can see that much of it is overkill. I suggest that if my opening counter to the hand on me (a joint lock that's supposed to break the wrist) doesn't do more than surprise and remove his hand from me, then I move into the next move(s) (e.g., the kick, then, if need be, the elbow strike I can perform according to the technique I used). If I break his wrist and he falls to the sidewalk in pain, I feel I'm obligated to stop right there. (I didn't say not to remain vigilant; I can remain so while I pull out my cell phone and call in the cavalry.) If he gets up and runs, I remember that I'm not a police officer, so I don't chase after him; instead, I report it.

I'm aware that I said, "I feel I'm obligated to stop right there," which is something that I'm commenting on regarding my own peace of mind, not legal ramifications. If my attacker is a larger man, reacting as I've described above, I say it holds true for me, for my mind. If he's larger (and I'm in middle age, so it's likely he's younger), I could likely legally "get away with" the additional kick and elbow strike, causing a lot of harm, but ought I? If I break his joint and he's still fighting, then that's another story; I'm fighting for my life and will have to continue with the technique.

When the police show up, they do not know what the situation was. It will be examined, and if I decided to maim or kill, the situation had better warrant it from both a moral and legal point of view.

I agree with you, Joesteph, we do have to take into account how many and so on, also what kind of technique we use. But one has to make up their mind today, before any such attack ever takes place IF it ever takes place, exactly how far you are going to carry through.

Here is my mind, living where I live and experiencing the things I see on a daily basis, if I am accosted by one single individual, then I am confident that I can handle the situation without ending in him dieing. Now lets change it up a bit, there are multiple attackers, and they are wearing gang colors - you have just entered into my world. You do not know if anyone is packing a gun or not, or how many may (in the old days it was usually only one, the group leader, now a days all four may be packing in a group of four), the point is - YOU don't know what they have.

In my experience you have to treat such a case as they all have weapons, so in this scenario, it is either kill or be killed. If I am to be a victim, I am taking out as many of them as I can. You also need to understand that where I live gang bangers shoot 16 year old girls just to get initiated into the gang. I don't have the pleasantry of living in a nice little house with a white pickett fence...I have gang bangers selling drugs just down the corner from my house. So far, I have been able to beat the odds with two attackers by breaking a wrist and an arm, and one of them had a baseball bat. I don't say that to say that I'm good, I say that to give you some idea of why I say what I say.

Do I want to hurt people? Absolutely not...I am also a minister. Will I do whatever it takes to defend myself and others from people who are hell-bent on hurting others? Yes, I will. I believe that this is also part of the Code of Bushido - defend the weak and helpless. If I go to jail for a couple of days until all things are straightened out, then so be it. At least the innocent didn't die, the attacker did.

Nuff said. Hasta!