Violence in the mind and not in the motion

[Alan Armstrong]

Controlling one's martial art and applying it appropriately depending on the situation should be taken in to consideration.

This does however take an enormous amount of knowledge and experience in a variety of martial art disciplines to be able to do it sensibly.

Restraining a mentally ill patient with Boxing or Muay Thai techniques isn't a working system.

Using martial art techniques to protect oneself against a mentally ill person in a hospital environment, should not involve any type of violence.

Perhaps a patient has a violent reaction to a medication; this isn't the moment to use a rear naked choke, till the person blanks out.

These scenarios are taught to the Chinese military police, something I was fortunate enough to learn.

There is of course the right time or moment to be very violent to protect oneself and love ones; which leads to the opposite issue of not being violent, when it is necessary to do do; sports martial arts don't usually address this issue appropriately.

This is precisely what I get paid to do. I can't count the times I have had to control a mentally ill or mentally well (but violent) patient.

I do use violence. Restraining someone (no matter how nicely you do it) is a violent act.

The act of restraining is violent without the mental intent of being violent?

[Alan Armstrong]

When a group of police are on video beating a single individual, this stirs outrage and riots.

Any type of unnecessary violence is nothing less than cruelty.

Controlling restraining and detaining doesn't necessarily need to become violent.

Those that threaten public safety, most definitely need to be apprehended as swiftly and effectively as possible or delt with whatever means necessary to stop further bloodshed.

We are living in a difficult age, the capabilities of a few individuals causing havocs to the rest of us is tremendous.

Human violent tendencies do need to be better understood, in hopes of a cure, so we can all live more in harmony with each other peacefully.

[LLLEARNER]

When a group of police are on video beating a single individual, this stirs outrage and riots.

Any type of unnecessary violence is nothing less than cruelty.

Controlling restraining and detaining doesn't necessarily need to become violent.

Those that threaten public safety, most definitely need to be apprehended as swiftly and effectively as possible or delt with whatever means necessary to stop further bloodshed.

We are living in a difficult age, the capabilities of a few individuals causing havocs to the rest of us is tremendous.

Human violent tendencies do need to be better understood, in hopes of a cure, so we can all live more in harmony with each other peacefully.

I agree. There are some police abusing their authority. They need to be dealt with. More importantly, how they got hired and trained needs to be discussed as well. Is it the gradual influence of weak-kneed elected officials that set the conditions for bad hires and bad training? Use of force training is taught to legal minimum standards. Legal minimum standards are ultimately determined by budgets and politicians (who do not do the job).

However, the use of force is never pretty. It does not look like a heavily choreographed movie-fu fight. A 30 second recording never tells the whole story.

[sensei8]

I believe that the type of violence that a MAist uses to defend family, loved ones, friends, and themselves is necessary, and in that, it's gauged...it's controlled, as well as nominal.

Whereas, outright and intentional violence is not of the MA, but it's of the individual.

The MA is peaceful; that's one of the MA most revered maxim, and it's not taken quite lightly. I'm not "violent" until I'm forced to be so, and whenever I'm forced to be so, it's a peaceful violence. To me, this isn't a oxymoron.

Imho!!

[Alan Armstrong]

Violence with or without intent still contains violence.

Self defence without violent intent is the way of the peaceful warrior.

Those turkeys that enjoy violence prolong the fight, the peaceful warrior on the other side wins the fight, due to knowing how and where to pluck the right feathers, just before it has a chance to take flight.

[bushido_man96]

Using martial art techniques to protect oneself against a mentally ill person in a hospital environment, should not involve any type of violence.

I don't agree. You don't get to choose who is going to use violence on you. You only get to choose to react and defend yourself. If this mentally ill person is trying to cause you great bodily harm or death, then you have to be ready to defend yourself as necessary, if you have to. Its similar to someone who is high on drugs or highly intoxicated. I don't care if they don't realize what they are doing. What matters is that they are doing it, and they have to be stopped from doing it. If that means escalating use of force, then that's how it has to be.

Perhaps a patient has a violent reaction to a medication; this isn't the moment to use a rear naked choke, till the person blanks out.

Actually, it probably would be the best time to use a rear-naked choke. You apply the choke properly and the person goes to sleep. They are done hurting you, and you are done hurting them. Actually, it would probably be a best-case scenario, but I honestly think it would be one of the best applications of that technique.

[bushido_man96]

When a group of police are on video beating a single individual, this stirs outrage and riots.

Any type of unnecessary violence is nothing less than cruelty.

Controlling restraining and detaining doesn't necessarily need to become violent.

Those that threaten public safety, most definitely need to be apprehended as swiftly and effectively as possible or delt with whatever means necessary to stop further bloodshed.

We are living in a difficult age, the capabilities of a few individuals causing havocs to the rest of us is tremendous.

Human violent tendencies do need to be better understood, in hopes of a cure, so we can all live more in harmony with each other peacefully.

I agree. There are some police abusing their authority. They need to be dealt with. More importantly, how they got hired and trained needs to be discussed as well. Is it the gradual influence of weak-kneed elected officials that set the conditions for bad hires and bad training? Use of force training is taught to legal minimum standards. Legal minimum standards are ultimately determined by budgets and politicians (who do not do the job).

However, the use of force is never pretty. It does not look like a heavily choreographed movie-fu fight. A 30 second recording never tells the whole story.

No, a 30-second recording doesn't tell the whole story, even in a scenario that looks lopsided. The thing to remember is there is usually an incident that an officer gets dispatched to, sometimes with limited information, and then who knows what happens when they arrive on scene. Then the report follows. But the sensationalism is what wins out on the news.

Training is also very important, but, no one can force officers to dedicate their time off-duty to self-defense training. So, the training that many get is limited to what they get from basic training and then from department training. The ones who actively seek out training are more often than not your defensive tactics instructors, special response team members, etc.

With all that said, what Paul Harvey said about the public's expectations of what officers should be able to do, like "whip a man twice his size and half his age" without hurting them, is not always how things will work out. We like to have compliance, but that doesn't always work out, either. And then, to top it off, an officer has to fight by a set of rules that don't exist for the other. And then the scrutiny comes. So when I see something passing on the news in regards to police use of force, I take it with a grain of salt, and no that there is always so much more to the story than we see in a 30-second bit of violence.

[LLLEARNER]

When a group of police are on video beating a single individual, this stirs outrage and riots.

Any type of unnecessary violence is nothing less than cruelty.

Controlling restraining and detaining doesn't necessarily need to become violent.

Those that threaten public safety, most definitely need to be apprehended as swiftly and effectively as possible or delt with whatever means necessary to stop further bloodshed.

We are living in a difficult age, the capabilities of a few individuals causing havocs to the rest of us is tremendous.

Human violent tendencies do need to be better understood, in hopes of a cure, so we can all live more in harmony with each other peacefully.

I agree. There are some police abusing their authority. They need to be dealt with. More importantly, how they got hired and trained needs to be discussed as well. Is it the gradual influence of weak-kneed elected officials that set the conditions for bad hires and bad training? Use of force training is taught to legal minimum standards. Legal minimum standards are ultimately determined by budgets and politicians (who do not do the job).

However, the use of force is never pretty. It does not look like a heavily choreographed movie-fu fight. A 30 second recording never tells the whole story.

No, a 30-second recording doesn't tell the whole story, even in a scenario that looks lopsided. The thing to remember is there is usually an incident that an officer gets dispatched to, sometimes with limited information, and then who knows what happens when they arrive on scene. Then the report follows. But the sensationalism is what wins out on the news.

Training is also very important, but, no one can force officers to dedicate their time off-duty to self-defense training. So, the training that many get is limited to what they get from basic training and then from department training. The ones who actively seek out training are more often than not your defensive tactics instructors, special response team members, etc.

With all that said, what Paul Harvey said about the public's expectations of what officers should be able to do, like "whip a man twice his size and half his age" without hurting them, is not always how things will work out. We like to have compliance, but that doesn't always work out, either. And then, to top it off, an officer has to fight by a set of rules that don't exist for the other. And then the scrutiny comes. So when I see something passing on the news in regards to police use of force, I take it with a grain of salt, and no that there is always so much more to the story than we see in a 30-second bit of violence.

I mostly ignore the initial reports on the news.

[sensei8]

Using martial art techniques to protect oneself against a mentally ill person in a hospital environment, should not involve any type of violence.

I don't agree. You don't get to choose who is going to use violence on you. You only get to choose to react and defend yourself. If this mentally ill person is trying to cause you great bodily harm or death, then you have to be ready to defend yourself as necessary, if you have to. Its similar to someone who is high on drugs or highly intoxicated. I don't care if they don't realize what they are doing. What matters is that they are doing it, and they have to be stopped from doing it. If that means escalating use of force, then that's how it has to be.

Perhaps a patient has a violent reaction to a medication; this isn't the moment to use a rear naked choke, till the person blanks out.

Actually, it probably would be the best time to use a rear-naked choke. You apply the choke properly and the person goes to sleep. They are done hurting you, and you are done hurting them. Actually, it would probably be a best-case scenario, but I honestly think it would be one of the best applications of that technique.

But those who work in that type of environment have very strict protocol as to how they apply any restraining techniques on the patient.

And as how a rear naked choke can end up, I'd refrain from applying it, and/or any choke hold, for that matter. One, it's more than likely against policy, and two, if the choke is overly done, then fatal implications could occur, especially if applied longer than necessary; adrenaline can back fire.

[LLLEARNER]

Using martial art techniques to protect oneself against a mentally ill person in a hospital environment, should not involve any type of violence.

I don't agree. You don't get to choose who is going to use violence on you. You only get to choose to react and defend yourself. If this mentally ill person is trying to cause you great bodily harm or death, then you have to be ready to defend yourself as necessary, if you have to. Its similar to someone who is high on drugs or highly intoxicated. I don't care if they don't realize what they are doing. What matters is that they are doing it, and they have to be stopped from doing it. If that means escalating use of force, then that's how it has to be.

Perhaps a patient has a violent reaction to a medication; this isn't the moment to use a rear naked choke, till the person blanks out.

Actually, it probably would be the best time to use a rear-naked choke. You apply the choke properly and the person goes to sleep. They are done hurting you, and you are done hurting them. Actually, it would probably be a best-case scenario, but I honestly think it would be one of the best applications of that technique.

But those who work in that type of environment have very strict protocol as to how they apply any restraining techniques on the patient.

And as how a rear naked choke can end up, I'd refrain from applying it, and/or any choke hold, for that matter. One, it's more than likely against policy, and two, if the choke is overly done, then fatal implications could occur, especially if applied longer than necessary; adrenaline can back fire.

I agree. I would not use an RNC at work (unless the situation called for it). We do have strict rules to follow. I teach the rules. Beyond the rules I follow my own principles. Restrain to prevent injury to themselves or others. I find that works best most of the time even the ones who are truly trying to assault me or others. I will and do restrain the head when they try spitting or biting (but not using the neck).