This is an important point about how any fight can potentially turn deadly. I have read multiple times about how someone dies in a fight because they get knocked down. The strike itself wasn't deadly, but hitting the ground with their head was. There was a MMMA fighter in some other country that killed someone in this manner and was charged for it. My school teaches to NOT assume a strike will put a stop to it, that it CAN have serious repurcussions- including death, but to never assume it is automatic. That is why we learn to follow up - until we can get away. That said you never know when an even mild hit can cause damage. I'll tell an embarrasing true story. We were practicing a series of moves that included a throat chop. At the moment, we were practicing with mild force. My Sifu was working with me and I just timed it wrong. He moved forward and I actually tapped his throat with the chop instead of the air like I was supposed to. It was far from a full force hit, but it apparently hit just the right spot. His throat swelled up he said. He was sore for several days. He went out with our school founder for lunch a day or two later and could barely swallow his food- enough so that our Founder commented on his lack of eating. I felt SO BAD about my lack of control. After apologizing profusely, I joked about him never advancing me another sash level. He laughed back and said such a good hit meant I should get an automatic advancement. What was reinforced from that experience was that while one should never assume the damage they cause will be the "deadly" hit, what we learn CAN indeed potentially cause severe damage. That said, if some big bad stranger is attacking me in a fight for my life and a throat chop presents itself, I will use it and worry about the legalities of it later.
Last week we were doing practice pad work. My partner was trying to motivate me. He said "imagine this is some guy trying to steal your car." I stopped and said "In that case, I am going to hand him my car keys. I have car insurance. But (as I started to hit the pad again) he's going after my niece.........." and I hit the pad as hard as I could.
The main problem with this, is that such a strike would rarely happen in a real situation under pressured conditions. I have seen so many of these tactics work by "accident" in the class but fail miserably upon actual or warranted deploy
If I understand this correctly you are predominately teaching and practicing techniques with your students where you are advocating "blunt force trauma" to different areas; however you are leaving it up to the individual student to determine for themselves what is reasonable force in a fight?
Someone posted earlier that it about how easy it is to do serious damage or even kill someone. While this is true. There are plenty of examples in the military and on police files about people being stabbed or shot multiple times and still fighting on. This could lead to a situation where the student has done the deadly on his opponent and does not get the desired results of the fight being over and he freezes. Also another big problem with deadly strikes is that the targets are seldom high opportunity targets. Personally I rather focus on high opportunity targets.
Read that-agree. I was merely adding a little extra Would this be the same as a martial art teaching sword skills, a gun owner being taught how to shoot, etc.? One would hope, somewhere in there, that the person learning will apply "common sense". After all, how can anyone put "sole responsibility" on the instructors? Because it would require more of a degree of skill, more hours of study, and someone NOT teaching such nonsense per having to say they "teach deadly moves". This is someone trying to upscale their skill via over-inflated ego. Somewhat near my post #103. No matter how or what you train, the situation can be something different
Maybe Tom and others DO teach also how to incapacitate and use lesser force, but the topic of this thread is about deadly force so that was what was being discussed? This seems to be one of those cases where Internet discussion blows things out of proportion to what is being said because people jump on one thing and run with it. Realize what people here are discussing is one particular aspect of training. One shouldn't assume that means they are discussing their entire training approach.
Given that blunt force trauma is striking, punches, kicks etc, and given that I teach an art that contains a lot of striking. The simple answer is yes. I equip my students with a range of tools. I am not advocating potentially lethal attacks above non lethal attacks. In fact it is just the opposite, however certain strikes are potentially lethal. I teach these strikes and I clearly identify to the student what the potential consequences of using them are. The only person who can determine what reasonable force is, in a given situation, is the person in that situation. It is difficult enough for a jury to determine reasonable force after the fact to expect anyone to determine it before the fact is quite frankly ludicrous.
I advocate the use of the minimum necessary force. It is up to the student to decide in the moment what constitutes the minimum necessary force.
The thread is about "is kung fu for killing". Kung fu does contain techniques that are potentially lethal, techniques like punching to the throat, "not deadly moves", just crude violence. These techniques could give a beginner a fighting chance against an attacker. It is not about ego. It is about duty, duty to my teacher to try my best to teach the art as he taught it to me, and duty to my students to do my best to equip them with the skills to survive violence if they have to.
Somewhat agree, but read my post below Actually the thread is titled "is kung fu for self defence or killing" Therefore, the discussion can be upon defence and/or killing aspects. From this, the subject of legal and moral tones surface. Within the OP's post are tones of ego, crude violence, maiming, and of course-killing While it maybe "the duty" of a teacher to equip their students with skill sets, there has to be a understanding of not only of a duty, but "what and to the extent of that duty"
Matial man, I thought it was obvious, but I guess I need to clarify. I am talking about the subsequent assumptions stemming from Tom's posts, not the Original Poster.
yea.... this. I train Strikes to vulnerable areas like the knee to the pubic bone / groin, but only as an If and when situation. If the situation presents itself for their use I can use them, but I do not rely on them exclusivly. I train hand strikes to the head and face as main stuff. I always liked the quote "Low percentage moves that you train are there IF you need them, but high percentage moves you train are there WHEN you need them"
True but I don't think it is possible to have a finely nuanced discussion about this on a forum. It is a complex subject. For example, I strongly advise against ever picking up a knife in self defense. For several reasons, Producing a knife instantly escalates the situation to lethal force It takes a lot to actually stab someone with a knife. If you pick up a lethal weapon and don't intend to actually use it, the chances are that it will be taken from you (and quite likely used against you). So my advice is don't pick up a knife. My advice for protection in the home is. If you think that someone has entered your house, shut yourself into a room with a phone, call the police and tell them that you have an intruder on the scene. Do not attempt to face the intruder. However if you are a single mother, and you think that someone has entered your house, you have a moral and legal right (in the uk) to pick up a knife in defense of yourself and your child. In this case you must use it with the intent to kill otherwise you are placing yourself and your child at risk of greater harm. My advice is still don't pick up a knife. In the Uk I would recommend picking up a baton. A baton is a highly effective weapon. It is very good at causing non lethal damage but has the potential to be lethal at last resort. So my advice would be, do not face an intruder. If you have to face an intruder pick up a weapon that you are competent in using. That you would not hesitate to use if you had to. I would recommend against a blade weapon as it is likely to escalate the level of violence you are exposed to. But if you do pick up a blade weapon, you cannot realistically hope to "stab someone a little bit" So your intention when fighting with a blade should be to kill quickly and efficiently. Thus minimizing the risk to yourself. Another example - the way I would teach a six foot man is different from the way i would teach a petite female. For the man I would advice caution in using strikes to vulnerable areas on a smaller opponent, because a six foot man can hit with a great deal of weight. For a woman I would advise aiming for vulnerable targets on a larger opponent because all other things being equal, a petite woman does not hit with much weight. For such a complex subject a forum is a very blunt instrument.
I totally agree. But there are some out there, that believe, a "certain" martial art should be to kill. In other words, there are some who teach/study, with the eagerness to severely harm or kill someone. Whereas, I believe, people "deserve" what they have "coming", I am not one to advocate to "go out" and "kill someone"
