technically I suppose this is possible, but I think that it is unlikely. No mens rea [intent] to be a party to criminal acts, and negligence would be a bit of a push. Still, I suppose it could be tried.
Ok I'll add another slant on this... I don't train my students to act without first understanding the situation their in, that would be, to use goober's words, irresponsible however, I do train my students to fully understand the origins of the art they study. Aikido does not seek to create carbon copies of their instructors nor students who act without forethought (however sub-conscious that might be) Yes my students know the difference between "origin" (Jutsu) and "modern" (Do) This brings me to answer (again lol) the question of why teach techniques which may be fatal. IMHO we need to train for all eventualities regardless of how distasteful that might sound, appear or actually be. Do I want to take life absolutely not, would I do so to protect myself, my family or friends if need be, I think yes but only when there isn’t another course of action. I'll conclude by saying techniques don't kill, people kill other people. We must first choose to take that course of action and, I don't subscribe entirely to the "instinct" rule of thumb.
The home is sacrosanct. It's almost always okay to kill a trespasser *inside* your house because one would have to come up with some pretty weird facts to argue that the residents lacked reasonable fear for their safety -- especially at night. Lethal force is never allowed to protect property. It is only permitted to protect people. (Technically, pets are property.) Not over here. Knife = deadly force = you feared for your life. You are allowed to respond in kind. His knife, your knife, doesn't matter. Same if it's a gun, same if it's a heavy stick. The weapon is irrelevant so long as you reasonably feared for your life, but reasonable fear is *presumed* with guns and knives. Guns and knives are defined as lethal weapons.
To the legal eagles here... Putting geographical issues aside, Say one of my students is attacked and in the course of that assault the perpetrator is killed with their own weapon. There is only one wound on the attacker's body, The defence claims the victim was acting in self defence, managed to remove the knife using Aikido technique then attempted to restrain the attacker however, due to the ensuing struggle the attacker was fatally wounded. The attempted restraining technique was being applied on the floor. There are no witnesses, the victim called the police. The prosecution claims the victim (a dan grade in aikido) used excessive force and intentionally wounded the deceased thus contributing to his death. The defendant explains that he learned Aikido from a registered and accredited instructor, said instructor (me) had explained and demonstrated to the students through the course of many years instruction the difference between the ideology/philosophical influences of Aiki"do" technique and the origins "jutsu" Additionally, all training was geared around free thinking attitude with the aim to develop a student technically and mentally. Points of discussion: 1, What constitutes "beaten" Was the attacker beaten at the point where the knife was removed from his possession ? How would the victim know that any submission on the part of the attacker was geniune ? How would the victim effectively call for assistance ? (assuming for the moment we're unable to gain assistance locally) 2, What constitutes "reasonable force" The victim was attempting to restrain the attacker but was also in possession of the weapon, it is suggested the injury was an accident by the defence and intentional by the prosecution 3, Can the instructor be held accountable for teaching applications which at their base level may require a student to end the life of another person in a survival situation. Regards
Second scenario One of my students is again attacked with a knife, the student effectively performs a tenkan variant of kote gaeshi, and the attacker crashes to the floor, violently bangs his head on the curb (sidewalk) and dies from his injuries. Points of discussion 1, was the technique using "reasonable force" considering : a, Aikido student knows it is unlikely the person attacking will NOT understand what is about to happen thus, will fall to the floor hard b, The aikido student will have a very good idea of the resulting injuries from the technique due to the training and knowledge of the "origins" of the waza. Regards
blimey...ok...from a UK perspective. unfortunately you can't really put geographic issues aside, as each jurisdiction will be different from a legal (if not moral) perspective. 1st. It is unlikely 'they' would ask if the victim did martial arts. Not the sort of information to voluteer. 'he attacked me, we struggled, fell to the floor and next I knew he'd stabbed himself'. i would personally play down any mention of any martial arts ('its only like yoga or tai chi, just in japanese...') In the case you descibe I think it was ll come down to evidence. For eg, where is the cut and how does it appear to have been caused. eg a slash across the neck, a thrust into the collar bone wells, looks dodgey. A messy, not clean gouge to the stomach. possibly ok. the key to why the victim is probably ok is here: "The defence claims the victim was acting in self defence, managed to remove the knife using Aikido technique then attempted to restrain the attacker however, due to the ensuing struggle the attacker was fatally wounded." This implies that the knife was removed, cast aside and then in the struggle they fell on it, there was no proactive action using the knife to cause injury. he didn't take it off the attacker and shove it in him. Ideally though the victim should have legged it. A good example is the tony martin case from a few years back, he went down because he used an illegal weapon to shoot his assailants in the back, as they were fleeing and took several shots to do it. that is why it was not self defence. the mortal threat had passed and the 'victim' was in control. If the burglers had been advancing on him he may have been ok, if it had been a legal weapon. what is reasonable force...books have been written on this, generally you are able to use the same amount of force to protect yourself as is directed against you, up until you have the opportunity to escape. If you have an opportunity to disengage and escape, and you do not, but 'finish off' in the common parlance then it is no longer self defence. For eg, disarming and using the knife against an assailant would not viewed well, unless there are other assailants. The instructor is unlikely to be liable for the same reasons as a knife shop or gun shop would not be, unless the instructor was in direct control of the student at the time or it could be shown that there was an intent on the part of the instructor to kill or maim or they were very negligent. Ie deliberately teaching locks to kids, or not setting techniques in context, drilling repeatedly extreme responses to minor situations. I wrote a piece on self defence once, I'll see if I can dig it out at home and post it up. for the second scenario, the student is on safer ground, lethal force has been used against him and he has responded with one technique that may be leathal. The caveat here - from a case I dug up a while ago, can't find the reference, sorry...a tkd chap has some grief in a pub and a chap tries to push him then puch him. the tkd chap evades the attack, and axe kicks him to the head. He went to prison. the judge said that the one technique he used was designed to kill, the attack used against him was not, it was not therefore commensurate force and was not therefore self defence. Also the 12 judging him may take the view that if he was skilled enough to do the defence then he should have been able to do something less leathal. A difficult situation to counter as a ma-ist will tell you, and it is my opinion from a legal/ma perspective that the technique used is reasonable, and after 20 years I know that you do what you can, texbooks and hollywood give a false impression. Unfortunately it is the hollywood/bruce lee/matrix/steven seagal version that has credibility with jurists. It is also one technique, if it is the version I am picturing then it is a flowing single movement (albeit in different directions) and there is no disarm. If there was a pause and a disarm half way through then it would be different. Another good story is about the guy that got arrested for refusing to stop doing sword katas in a park. And refused to put on any clothes. Nothing do do with self defence, but I came across it when searching for instances where martial arts have been cited in criminal cases. There are very very very few, by the way. probably indicative that the prosecution is reasonable, any instances are minor and therefore not reported, ma-ists don't get into fights, or we don't get caught or make sure the bodies are never found... trust me, the law is clear...it is just a bugger to explain...
Taking a very basic form of this technique, I agree the arm would be the first point of injury and, most likely the person on the arm breaking end wouldn't always 'fall' per se, rather end up crunching up on the floor under the technique however; it is also possible to extend the person's arm in the process of making a strong tenkan, the result of this variation is that there is less 'kote gaeshi' and more body turning, although it is essentially the same technique the result for the receiving end is they loose control of their balance and fall rearward as their legs travel in the original direction and their upper body (directed by the arm) travels in another. As they fall the first (general) point of contact with the floor is their hip (usually the corresponding side with the technique'd arm) then closely followed up by the back/upper body. The reaction through the rest of the upper body/shoulders to the sudden "stop" with the ground is their remaining arm and head make contact with the ground. (A whiplash effect essentially) Regards
Where are they? Why are they there? Why are there no witnesses? The "reasonable" part of "reasonable force" turns on the particular facts and circumstances. Possibly so. Once the attacker breaks off his attack, the defender is supposed to stop. If the defender does not stop, he is no longer the defender -- he is now the new attacker. He's now committing battery. This is tricky. Before and during the fight loudly speak words like, "stop attacking me" and "go away" and "I'm being attacked" so as to give the impression to any witnesses that you are the victim. After the fight, when calling for an ambulance, do not tell the operator the particulars of the fight. Just say someone has been hurt, he's bleeding from whereever, it looks like he was stabbed/slashed/whatever, his arm/whatever appears to be broken, etc. Just the basics of his injury so that the ambulance crew can prepare themselves. Emergency phone calls are recorded. They are taping you and if your case is sent to a prosecutor he will get a copy of that tape. Save the details for your lawyer and the cops. The test goes something like this: 1) he reasonably believed that he was in immediate physical danger; 2) he acted solely because of his belief; and 3) he used no more force than appeared reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Another phrasing is: "there was a hostile demonstration, which may be reasonably regarded as placing the accused apparently in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining great bodily harm." What is "reasonable belief"? What are "the circumstances"? The basic rule is that you can meet punches with punches, and weapons with weapons. That said, a slender, lightweight person can probably get away with pulling a butcher knife on someone slapping her, or him, around the house, but a large muscular man would probably not get away with that. The facts make the case. Interesting question. I've never heard it come up. While in law school I searched for cases concerning martial arts in three States and found almost nothing. I interpret that to mean that martial artists are not the people causing trouble. Same rule over here: you can't shoot people in flight.
My guess on this particular point is that he should have run away and calling the police; because according to law he had to stop when the Aikido-action was accomplished...
The following quote I believe is from "Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting" by John Farnam. Mr. Farnam very much impressed me, although I only ever got to train with him in the early 1990's for a few days. Anyway, this is a great explanation particularly when using a weapon in self-defense, IMO: In regards to the law and martial arts training, I have been led to believe that once you are in a position where deadly self-defensive actions are warranted, the flow of combat can be considered with what training you have as to what is reasonable action. For instance, if I train to down an attacker and also quickly snap their arm and strike them in the armpit and kick them in the head as one continous flow, this is considered follow through. A martial artist is taught to follow-through as dictated by their training. The follow-through is part of the flow of combat to remove the threat of an attacker in a self-defense situation. The intent of follow through is to end the conflict quickly so as to minimize the risk to yourself and others. Throwing someone to the ground can give you a break in combat, however, are you sure they don't have another weapon like a gun to pull out and shoot you with it? Or another knife? So you take them out in one continous flow. Follow through does not mean you intend to kill them, only that training has provided a method in which to neutralize a threat as appropriate rather than play a guessing game with your own life and the possible life of others. In a sense, you can use your training methods as part of your defense in a court of law if you can show that you followed your training methods in the flow of combat and that those methods are viewed as appropriate. Or so it seems as I am not a lawyer. If the flow of combat is broken, then I have been led to believe that a martial artist has much less protection in the court of law. For instance it is not self-defense if the defender neutralizes the attacker and gets away leaving the attacker injured on the ground... but then a minute later the defender comes back and beats on the attacker more because he feels the attacker hadn't gotten enough of a beating. The flow of combat was broken when the defender disengaged successfully. These are important things to consider, IMHO.
BINGO !! And that ladies and gentlemen is EXACTLY what I've been saying from the very minute I started within this thread. Circumstances dictate the appropriate course of action. Free thinking people act based on merit and NOT simply on instinct. So before I get the carte blanche response from goober (AGAIN) let me again say that I do not advocate murder or teaching a student to wilfully and with thought end a person's life simply because it just happened to be **part of** a technique however; and what I've maintained all along is that my training prepares me for a wide range of eventualities however unlikely or distasteful that ultimately might be. The question "why teach these types of techniques?" has been raised earlier, the answer to that is fairly obvious (to me anyway) skill sets would be incomplete without a beginning, middle and end in every technique, students must train to sufficient level to be in a position where they are able to determine for themselves where the "end" actually arrives. Instructors must ensure their "duty of care" extends to teaching their students correctly both the physical skills and development of mental attitude and situational awareness which, isn't 'switched off' at the moment a technique starts because instinct supposedly controls the situation. Regards
Wow. I blinked and 6 pages of postings appeared! In the end, as Dave has said (with more patience than I was able to muster) we teach a MARTIAL art. We teach it to people who need to know how to defend against a lethal attack because it is part of their lives. We teach it to those who may occasionally need some self defence. We teach it to those whose interest is purely that of the art itself - without any application or modern context. Aikido needs to be celebrated for this! How many other arts have such breadth that they can accommodate such a range of requirements?! The questions of 'do' and 'jutsu' and of 'deadly techniques' or 'ki' enrich us all. However, I do think that we (especially Dave) have answered this query about teaching deadly techniques more than adequately. In the end, an individual instructor is on his/her own and must take responsibility for what and how these techniques are taught. pj groober seems unable to grasp this and seems to think we should not teach certain techniques in case they are then applied on the street. In the general run of things, I would hope never to need to defend against lethal force, but I defend anyone's right to learn how to do so. As for killing a man with his own knife - circumstances and morality dictate this choice, not an MA instructor. If I think the guy, or his mates, still pose a lethal threat, he's dead. End of story.
I disagree. Never come across this before. I think arguing 'follow through because of my martial arts training' will get you sent to prision. Just my opinion. Dave Humm - have re-read some of these posts I think that I agree with pjgoober. yes there are justifications in learning differnt things, not arguing this. Originally Posted by aikiMac The "reasonable" part of "reasonable force" turns on the particular facts and circumstances. BINGO !! And that ladies and gentlemen is EXACTLY what I've been saying from the very minute I started within this thread. and having re-read some of the posts this may have been what you meant but it didn't quite come across like that. Perhaps the emotion of the argument took over or something. and then pjgoober kicked in, also not quite making himself clear and also emotive. I have noticed that this forum does tend to get a little personal... 'Free thinking people act based on merit and NOT simply on instinct' no they don't - and your military training should demonstrate this to you, it is designed to take the thought out of the actions, and on this point I agree with pjgoober, training in a technique with an automatic 'follow through' could have legal implications and could resort in a student - note, I am saying a student, not you - finding himself in a situation where he loses the defence of 'self defence'. fthl
Ok I haven't really been following this thread but on the point of free thinking people and automatic follow throughs I'd like to say this. As an Aikido student while I have been trained to make technique instinctive (that is to say I can apply technique without haveing to think through all the little subtle movements and actions), I have also been trained in equal measure to be aware of what's happening all around me at the same time and to always be aware of what is happening to my uke/attackers body at all times. It is this approach to training that allows a martial artist to provide a measured response to a threat. To act on instinct doesn't always mean you have become a mindless zombie.
Well on this point I'm afraid this is where we reach a point where we need to agree to disagree. I cannot contest the legal aspects of what you say however, I am qualified to discuss aspects of conditioning through both military and civilian training. Yes military training (infantry) is designed to bring a soldier to a level of confidence in himself, his skills and his comrades; where in times of high stress they are capable of overcoming fear (confidence through knowledge) and get on with their role (application of knowledge) however; every soldier is continually evaluating the 'situation' as it develops and in turn acts according to: (very simplistically) A. His orders B. The development of the 'situation' as the conflict unfolds They do not act purely or solely on instinct PERIOD ! Is it instinctive to jump out of a C130 at 1000ft ? Nope and I've done that over 90 times. Is it instinctive to squeeze the trigger and kill the enemy just because they're there... Regardless of how many times you practice on a range ? NO!! You carry out your actions based upon the situation and the threat you face but, you know you CAN IF YOU NEED TO. Now, you mentioned the word "automatic" in your reply. Nothing in quality aikido training is "automatic"; I've never in 18 years found a Japanese or Western Aikikai Sensei who trains this way. For instance: How many ways are there to make Ikkyo from Yokomen uchi and why do those variations exist ? Firstly, they exist as a potential response to a given set of circumstances, each version has its own merits and the person applying them must first decide for themselves which to use based on situation, here people are thinking for themselves and not acting purely "automatically". Yes their training will significantly reduce the required "thinking time" but they are never-the-less 'thinking' *IF* this is what goober referrers to as "instinct" then I would be prepared to at least concede this point. Secondly, conditioning should be both physical and psychological, each should be beneficial to the student, and they end up being "better" people for their training. (And I am of course talking in a modern context and not Koryu) Training someone to arbitrarily "kill" IS WRONG and I AGREE that it is immoral to do so without there being an equal amount of reason. Regards
We don't have to agree. I see your points fthl but it appears to me that they are not as much about real world application of martial arts but more about philosophy or the "idea" of what is proper. For instance, if I said that I kicked someone in the head after I took them to the ground, maybe you get a picture in your mind that I was trying to kick their head like a football with the intent to greatly injure the "enemy". Are you a mind reader? How do you know what I mean? You can instead of guessing, you can make a judgement of what I mean based on your intimate knowledge of my training. In training if I kick to the head with less force and more accuracy to stun the opponent enough so that I can run away or gain a better position to control them from, then maybe then you can get a much more accurate picture of what I meant when I said I kicked someone in the head. If on the other hand, my training consists of knocking the heads off of people with my kicks, you might very well come to the conclusion that is what I meant. The idea of kicking a downed person in the head you could argue all day long is wrong. You could call me irresponsible for teaching it as a follow-up to a takedown on your belief that it is wrong to do such. You could refuse to consider my explanations that the follow-up is not to maim but to distract or stun and maybe knock out if I get really lucky, but it is not to kill. You could ignore my explanations that such a follow-up is all part of a continous flow of combat and that I am in control of my own actions to do so as needed with as much force as I deem necessary and reasonable. Combat, as you probably will agree, is very complex, involving many factors. When combat occurs you have something I describe as momentum and you flow with what you got, you go with the momentum until such a point you can reverse it or stop it. I feel that if you train follow-ups, including potentially lethal "finishing moves", in a responsible manner then what is developed is the control to not use them. So you act off of seated instinct but through training and experience you gain the control to use the appropriate amount of force for the situation. Can you imagine the opposite? Someone who learns of a killing technique using a knife by watching television or reading a book and then starts to practice it. Then they actually try to use it on someone else? They may have no control over the amount of force and of themselves and either they totally fail or they totally succeed in killing. To me that is very sad and would suck. On the other hand, someone well trained, can act off of seated instinct and then actually control the technique (follow-through) of the knife so as to not cut to a vital point or to hold back and use it to cover the enemy so that they may have a chance to surrender. The intention is all still there but the level of force is less than lethal as appropriate for the situation. Of course people are complex too and I cannot really say what will or won't be the case for every situation and individual. However, I can still state my debate and so that you can make some judgement on it for yourself.
and I don't think we will...but that's fine... I'm looking at it more from the perspective of what is legal, not what is proper. I concede that the two are in some cases not compatible. I personally think that if some sod attacks me or those close to be I will put them through the floor and keep 'defending myself' until they stop moving. Or breathing. This is my opinion, however I also recognise that legally self defence will probably stop before that point. I'm aware of that point so hopefully that will stand me in good stead when I have to explain my actions...
I have told stories about how Aikido works in real life and am sick telling them. it works. But having said that, the two most important things about any martial arts is the teacher and the student. Go to the library and look up Uesheba our aikido O'sensie. you will find he is a legend in japan. Although O'sensie disapproves of violence, when someone from another style puts Aikido down I show them fast how wrong they are. Aikido works. If it doesn't for you, than u are doing it wrong or are new. I admit it is a style that takes a long time to get. In any case, keep training and I wish you all well.
It’s not Aikido which is effective but the people who employ it. Techniques don't apply themselves, people apply them therefore; the more skilled and adept you are at making techniques in given situations will result in the desired effect. Aikido isn't effective per sé, it's the person and how skilled they are. Regards
