Limitations

[joesteph]

I'm sure we're all familiar with the following:

Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill. For all life is precious, nor can any be replaced.

I posted this under Strategies and Tactics because the ones we use have a great range, right up to fatal applications. Do you believe that martial artists who follow this advice (credo?) do so because they genuinely believe it to be the right thing to do, or because they fear that they themselves will get into trouble, either with the law or both the law and a lawsuit?

[bushido_man96]

Hmmm, hard to tell. I think that most MAists will claim that "if they have to kill, then they would, to defend their life or loved ones," but I am of the opinion that one can never really know until faced with such a scenario. It is something to very seriously consider.

Avoid, rather than check. Check, rather than hurt. Hurt, rather than maim. Maim, rather than kill.

I can't say that I really abide by such a credo. I just don't think about it like that. I do feel that it is important to understand a use of force continuum, which is similar to this credo, but I think is open to more interpretation.

With my experiences in my workplace, I do tend to think about the legality of actions when things start running through my head. At times, my DT partner and I will discuss use of force, and articulation of said usage; the two go hand in hand, both for LEOs and for civilians. So, I don't know if I would say that I fear getting into trouble, but that I consider the legality of what my actions might result in, and thus be prepared to face such consequences.

I hope that answers your questions, Joe.

[JusticeZero]

The way I generally formulate it is with a curve of applied revenge/blame potential.

Less harmful techniques have less chance of you getting in trouble and being blamed; if an attacker would be able to make it to work the next day after failing to catch you, repercussions are fairly unlikely or minor.

In more extreme situations, more harmful techniques are sometimes needed in order to successfully flee the situation in order to not get blamed for the incident.

On occasion, enough force can be brought to bear on the practitioner is justified in using lethal force. This brings vast amounts of risk of blame, but on the bright side, if the practitioner can justify it to escape immediate repercussions, the attacker will no longer be able to seek revenge.

Using maiming force is probably not as good as using lethal force; this troubles me a bit, but that's the advice i've heard from various sources - 'if you have to turn it past 7, just crank it to 10, you'll get in less trouble that way.'

It is a point of our specific martial philosophy that, in any altercation, the practitioner will be the one accused of all crimes in the general vicinity of the attack regardless of any circumstances or evidence. Escape, disabling pursuers if necessary, is thus the preferred response to most defence scenarios. Gentle restraint techniques, as a rule, are foreign concepts for this reason.

[bushido_man96]

Using maiming force is probably not as good as using lethal force; this troubles me a bit, but that's the advice i've heard from various sources - 'if you have to turn it past 7, just crank it to 10, you'll get in less trouble that way.'

This brings up another good point, and by using "levels" like 1 through 10, in all likelyhood, might cause more harm than good to the person protecting themselves. Say a case of this type ends up in court, and you have in some way alluded to "levels" like this in technique. You end up being grilled about "why you didn't drop it a level, when you knew that less 'zip' on a technique would have been sufficient."

In my mind, this is akin to the arguements in uses of firearms, like, "why didn't you just shoot him in the the leg?" The reason, is because you don't train to do that; you train to shoot for center mass. Now, I'm not saying that every technique should be done to kill, not at all. But, by claiming that you can control the level of intensity of your techniques like that, you can set yourself up for problems in a courtroom crossfire.

One that my DT partner likes to rehearse is this:

Defense attorney: "How hard did you hit him, officer?"

My partner's response: "As hard as I could."

Def. attorney: "Why did you hit him so hard?"

Partner: "So I wouldn't have to hit him again."

For what its worth...

[JusticeZero]

Yeah, I don't use levels like that. One of the people who was explaining it to me did, and that's a paraphrase of that bit of explanation; it pretty much was that any techniques on the top end of the force continuum should be specifically tailored to be lethal; ie if given the choice between severing an attacker's hand or severing the attacker's throat, where no lesser response is practical, one should always chose the technique to sever the throat, as the repercussions will ultimately be much less severe.

Troubling, but the logic seemed sound.

[tallgeese]

I think most guys don't really want to destroy other people. At least trained ma-ists. Most tend to train to the minimal amount of force needed to control the situation. That being said, the minimal amount of force needed might be deadly force.

I don't think many are so concerned with litigation that they allow it to influence their training. If they do, I don't think they should.

On the issue of actually being prepared to take a life, I agree with bushido man, most people despite what they say probably aren't ready to do it. You can increase the likelihood that you'll be prepared, but that's another thread. If your interested in that sort of thing, check out Grossman's "On Combat".

[sensei8]

Do you believe that martial artists who follow this advice (credo?) do so because they genuinely believe it to be the right thing to do, or because they fear that they themselves will get into trouble, either with the law or both the law and a lawsuit?

What's the virtue of a proportional response?

There is no virtue to a proportional response...it is what it is. At times we only have what we have, therefore, my response will be whatever is necessary in order to deal with what was brought to me. My main goal is survival and if survival means to just run away, then so be it. I'm not out to do harm, but, I will do what I must do.

One that my DT partner likes to rehearse is this:

Defense attorney: "How hard did you hit him, officer?"

My partner's response: "As hard as I could."

Def. attorney: "Why did you hit him so hard?"

Partner: "So I wouldn't have to hit him again."

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!

If I end up in jail, going to court while defending my loved ones, friends, and/or myself...then...I'll deal with that whenever that might happen, and hopefully a judge will see it my way.

We might think of it from time to time, therefore, we've an answer for it right now, but, when it happens, I'm not thinking about anything other than what it is that I'm doing to protect my loved ones, my friends, and myself. Is this right or wrong? I don't know, but, my body will be saying...THANK YOU!

This is a tough one to truely answer! Darn if I do and darn if I don't!

[tallgeese]

Most people really get to worked up about this and worry excessively over it. Legally, act like a reasonable person would and you'll b e fine. I've never actually seen anyone get railroaded by following that advice.

[sensei8]

Most people really get to worked up about this and worry excessively over it. Legally, act like a reasonable person would and you'll b e fine. I've never actually seen anyone get railroaded by following that advice.

SOLID!

[JusticeZero]

The main issue is that a 'reasonable person' should just walk away from silly challenges to their ego, but lots of people seem to want to 'teach them a lesson' or get their last licks in. As I often tell people, "If it started with "I was in the bar.." it's not self defence." But the principle is a bit more broad than that. If you blindly and carelessly walk into dangerous places and situations, expect danger to happen.