T Nation

Use of Force Laws

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I’m not saying don’t fight back or give up easy. The way my teachers taught us is they had us fight hard and if someone got hurt we tried to continue and shake it off as we fought.

The point I am trying to make is there may be times where it is not a bad idea to respond to an outside influence saying stop. Fights are unique dynamic events where no two are exactly alike. You should be responsive to your environment. Not be programmed to shut out everything around you, mindlessly grind someone down and not stop.

There is a yin and yang to martial arts. Killer instinct can make you dangerous to an opponent, but too much can make you a danger to yourself. I know people who have ended up in jail being hard asses. I also know people who have been sued for tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

I know a guy who had to pay over a hundred thousand dollars to settle out of court for a fight that he didn’t start. The reason why he had to settle out of court is because he had a criminal record from fighting. If you work in law enforcement you should know that once you get even one assault charge that can have a huge affect on the rest of your life. ie try getting a CCW with an assault charge on your record. Or try getting a job with a felony assault on your record.

[/quote]

Sifu does have a lot of good points in this thread, whether they were necessarily asked for or not.

The idea that a cop pulling up is going to assume that the person beating on the other person is actually the one who was attacked is faulty- cops know that criminals stack the deck in their favor and don’t attack unless they think they can win. For your average person to completely turn the tables on them and beat them to the point of domination is EXTREMELY unlikely.

In a straight fight, which you’ve got to be an asshole to be in anyway, the winner of the fight gets the assault charges while the loser gets beat down. It shouldn’t work like that, but most times it does. Sometimes, even the loser gets pegged with assault charges- happened to a friend of mine when he got jumped and got the shit kicked out of him. A guy tried to fishook him, so my buddy bit the end of his finger off. Inexplicably, he’s the one who had serious charges AGAINST him.

I read somewhere that the justice system doesn’t necessarily care about being fair, it cares about getting things RESOLVED. Keeping that in mind, you must take care to not go overboard in a streetfight. If you do, you’re opening up the doors for involuntary manslaughter.

It isn’t a bad idea that, if you’re attacked by a criminal in a secluded spot, leave them where they lay and don’t call anybody. Make your life a bit easier. (Disclaimer- I didn’t just advise anyone to do that.)

Yeah, I get it, Sifu.

I’m teaching them to stop when the threat is neutralized, as I’ve said repeatedly. Of course it’s easy to go too far, I get it. That’s why I’m addressing the issue in class, so they don’t have to address it in court. If I was teaching my students “to have tunnel vision and not be responsive to their environment” that would be pretty stupid.

What I do not want them to do is be obedient sheep. If they hear “stop” & stopping is a good idea, then they should do it, just like you did when that guy tackled you. Whether or not its a good idea is for THEM to decide (unless its a drill).

If the cops show up & the guy is still attacking me, I’m going to have to keep fighting him off if I can, & pray they intervene quickly. Hopefully jut their arrival will be enough to stop the whole incident. If someone has attacked me and I’ve got him on the ground and unable to fight but I keep beating him, well, I guess I just got myself in trouble now, didn’t I?

Clarification: As I said, in drills (only) they are not to stop at all. These all-out drills usually last one, maybe two minutes (per striker). This is to build stamina & fighting spirit & (in my class) the ability to disregard stimulus as they choose. I also frequently go around smacking them with a pad during these drills so they remain responsive to their environment - at least aware enough to move & use their padholder as a human shield against my attack.

Please be aware that the people I teach are mostly first year students, people who are not always entirely comfortable striking someone, even to a pad. They play by the rules. They’re nice people. There are a few that need to be reined in from the beginning, but most need to learn that its okay, and sometimes necessary, to go hard. This is very difficult to accept for some people.

You are right to encourage me to be cautious. You are wrong to assume I am reckless with my students’ lives and teaching them to be a “programmed, mindless, killers.”

Thanks LHT & Cycobushmaster, you’ve given me a lot to think about. And Irish, kicking to the face if they’re on the ground is attempted murder? I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. We do teach stomping or kicking the head as a finisher in a life-or-death scenario. I’ll address that with my instructors today, thanks for the “heads up” har har.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Sifu does have a lot of good points in this thread, whether they were necessarily asked for or not.

The idea that a cop pulling up is going to assume that the person beating on the other person is actually the one who was attacked is faulty- cops know that criminals stack the deck in their favor and don’t attack unless they think they can win. For your average person to completely turn the tables on them and beat them to the point of domination is EXTREMELY unlikely.

In a straight fight, which you’ve got to be an asshole to be in anyway, the winner of the fight gets the assault charges while the loser gets beat down. It shouldn’t work like that, but most times it does. Sometimes, even the loser gets pegged with assault charges- happened to a friend of mine when he got jumped and got the shit kicked out of him. A guy tried to fishook him, so my buddy bit the end of his finger off. Inexplicably, he’s the one who had serious charges AGAINST him.
[/quote]

Oh, jeez, this is exactly the kind of stuff I’m thinking of when I bring this up. I’m sorry about your friend.

This is interesting. A cop recently told me that if this were the situation & I believed there were any chance HE would call & could identify me, or there might be witnesses, then I should call the cops as soon as I could & explain what happened. He said its human nature to take the first “complainer” more seriously. There are so many “what if’s” in these situations!

I also think if the attacker & I were alone in a secluded spot & I were able to defend myself, that would be the most likely scenario where I would take things “too far” because I’d be even more scared. There’s no one to run to for help, so I have to end it here, or I’m afraid he’ll end ME.

Agreed about staying out of “straight fights”. Right now I’m just talking about being assaulted by a criminal who means to harm or kill you for fun or profit.

[quote]Miss Parker wrote:
And Irish, kicking to the face if they’re on the ground is attempted murder? I didn’t know that, but it makes sense. We do teach stomping or kicking the head as a finisher in a life-or-death scenario. I’ll address that with my instructors today, thanks for the “heads up” har har.[/quote]

My understanding is that they can be charged with it. Its an idea that floats in the wind, so I’m not sure of its absolute truth, but amongst we degenerates its considered serious.

I have also read that in some parts, the shod human foot is considered a deadly weapon- which means that you could feasibly be charged with Asssault with a deadly weapon for kicking a downed person in the face.

The couple Krav Maga classes I went to over the years all had kicking in the face as a finisher… I always thought that if it that wasn’t excessive force, what the hell is? But I do wonder how many people have actually even been in fights who teach these classes… krav maga or otherwise.

Sometimes it just seems like foolish ignorance, and I think that’s why I have such a hard time finding a class to stick with.

[quote]Miss Parker wrote:

This is interesting. A cop recently told me that if this were the situation & I believed there were any chance HE would call & could identify me, or there might be witnesses, then I should call the cops as soon as I could & explain what happened. He said its human nature to take the first “complainer” more seriously. There are so many “what if’s” in these situations!
[/quote]

Fair enough. And if you knew the guy, like if it was a rape attempt or something, I’d say sure. But if it’s just a nameless jerkoff on the street late at night, I’m not reporting anything.

Keep in mind that most times when I had physical confrontations, I was doing something terribly wrong (and most likely was fucked up) as well. So being a 19-year old kid whose so drunk he could barely stand, I wasn’t going to necessarily go to the cops and say, “Hey this guy assaulted me.”

I shut the fuck up, and assumed that it was likely that he would do the same. For a harrowing month or so, I was watching my back closely because of the simple fact that I hadn’t heard anything from the cops… however, I had heard in the wind that there was one guy looking for me. I have a good story about that… sometimes supremely ironic things happen in life.

Anyway, I am of the mindset that I’m not going to be bothered with the cops, because they’ll be as quick to fuck me over as they will the other guy. Letting sleeping dogs lie has always been a thing of mine.

Really- how likely is that criminal to call the cops? A guy robbing or raping his way through life is not likely to do that.

[quote]
I also think if the attacker & I were alone in a secluded spot & I were able to defend myself, that would be the most likely scenario where I would take things “too far” because I’d be even more scared. There’s no one to run to for help, so I have to end it here, or I’m afraid he’ll end ME.

Agreed about staying out of “straight fights”. Right now I’m just talking about being assaulted by a criminal who means to harm or kill you for fun or profit. [/quote]

Believe me Parker, I understand.

I don’t actually remember my finest streetfight- the mix of alcohol and adrenaline caused me to “black out” - even now, I only remember small bits and pieces. Whole sections of the fight are missing… and as soon as my adrenaline calmed down, my memory returns.

And unfortunately, this shit happens so fast that by the time you realize, “Shit, I went to far,” it’s already over.

Hence why it is best not to get involved in this game at all. But I know what you’re saying. Hopefully you’ll never be in that spot.

If you’re an “expert” or “instructor” at anything, any prosecuting attorney can easily make the case that any force you used was deadly force, especially if you go overboard. Again, Texas is relatively lenient with their deadly force laws, but not that lenient.

Once your opponent stops responding, even if they initiated the fight, it elevates from a consensual brawl to something else (depending on state and local laws), but once they are “out” they have stopped consensually participating in the fight. Therefore, you need to stop. If you’re an expert, as far as the law is concerned, you’re using a deadly weapon on someone who is “out”, it’s like shooting the guy who tried to steal your handbag in the back as he tries to run away, i.e. murder or attempted murder.

Be careful.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
If you’re an “expert” or “instructor” at anything, any prosecuting attorney can easily make the case that any force you used was deadly force, especially if you go overboard. Again, Texas is relatively lenient with their deadly force laws, but not that lenient.

If you’re an expert, as far as the law is concerned, you’re using a deadly weapon on someone who is “out”, it’s like shooting the guy who tried to steal your handbag in the back as he tries to run away, i.e. murder or attempted murder.

[quote]

where did you get this information from? the whole being an expert in martial arts=deadly weapon is a myth in most states, if not all (kinda like the yahoos that say they’ve registered their hands as deadly weapons). otherwise every professional fighter that gets into a scrap would be doing 25 years…

[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
If you’re an “expert” or “instructor” at anything, any prosecuting attorney can easily make the case that any force you used was deadly force, especially if you go overboard. Again, Texas is relatively lenient with their deadly force laws, but not that lenient.

If you’re an expert, as far as the law is concerned, you’re using a deadly weapon on someone who is “out”, it’s like shooting the guy who tried to steal your handbag in the back as he tries to run away, i.e. murder or attempted murder.

[quote]

where did you get this information from? the whole being an expert in martial arts=deadly weapon is a myth in most states, if not all (kinda like the yahoos that say they’ve registered their hands as deadly weapons). otherwise every professional fighter that gets into a scrap would be doing 25 years…[/quote]

Concealed carry class. It covered all this stuff, at least for New Mexico, and Utah. I guess it could be really different elsewhere. It’s fight is different, while there are two people going at it, it’s a different story once one of them is out. It also has to do with the match-up. “An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.” was one of the definitions we were given for deadly force. The idea of registering hands is pretty silly sounding, granted, but that’s not really how it works. Right, so deadly force against a nine-month old is different than deadly force against another adult.

Just a couple of afterthoughts – in regards to Miss Parker’s teaching methods, there is something to be said for maintaining not just awareness but even aggression once the police show up, but before they have clear control over the situation. Small-time criminals are…well…generally stupid and impetuous. You back off and drop your guard as soon as a cop shows up, I would not put it past many people to grab a rock or stabbing weapon and ruin your world even in front of the cops because they perceived it as a shot at getting even. Add to that the tunnel vision effect that FightingIrish mentioned and such a possibility becomes more understandable.

I guess ultimately, like most things in life, it’s a balance. There are no firm answers because a lot depends on the individual first responder police and the character of the DA. Even in Spartiates quote of the definition of excessive force, that statement is extremely broad and open to vast differences of interpretation. If you’re serious about learning to defend yourself, it should be remembered that the unpredictable aspects of the event may extend well beyond the fight itself.

Laws can be enforced and interpreted in what seem like completely contradictory ways. The police are not responsible for your personal safety as an individual (this has been tested in the courts in the United States) but the police and DA or city attorney (the prosecutor who handles most of the misdemeanor cases in your area) might disagree with your definition of an adequate response to an assault.

I hate to say it, but politics play a part as well. If assault-type violence is in the media frequently during an election year, your chances of prosecution might be a bit higher. This happened to me once – when I was moving, a highway patrol officer pulled me over because some stuff in my overhead container was falling out. In my van, he saw a box which had syringes. I told him that my father is an anesthesiologist, and fortunately my dad was driving right behind me and was there to confirm the reason for having syringes in a box. The officer nodded, and let me go on my way with no ticket or apparent issue. However, it seems he did write up the event, because THREE MONTHS later, I get a letter from the city attorney in my old home town saying that I’m charged with misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charges and have to appear in court in a couple of months.

I called my lawyer and he said this is happening every day, and his interpretation was that the increase in prosecutions were a direct result of drugs being the top focus in the CA’s reelection campaign. Fortunately, my lawyer sorted things out, charges were dropped, and I never even had to appear in court. It still stressed the hell out of me and if I didn’t have the ability to hire a good lawyer I could have very easily spent a month or two in county or at least had a big fine and suspended sentence or community service sentence.

Point is, self-defense isn’t just skill during the fight, it’s awareness before and acknowledgement of all the potential ramifications that might happen even well after the fight. Personally, I would rather present overwhelming force to an unprovoked attack and prepare for the consequences afterwords, though I could not bring myself to stomp on a downed guy’s head or neck unless he had killed a loved one. Ultimately it’s an individual choice as to how you will respond, and your choice should be as informed as possible.

Fightingirish also brought up another valueable point – if you do get into an altercation, LEAVE the area, even if you do report the incident to the police, and never return if you don’t have to. I’ve read so many cases where a person who started a criminal act and was physically stopped became so angry and insulted that they were stopped that they came back with the intent to kill.

Of course, FightingIrish, as usual, ignored the most obvious issue that makes this whole situation problematic – This is all Obama’s fault.

Sorry. Had to do it :smiley:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
If you’re an “expert” or “instructor” at anything, any prosecuting attorney can easily make the case that any force you used was deadly force, especially if you go overboard. Again, Texas is relatively lenient with their deadly force laws, but not that lenient.

Once your opponent stops responding, even if they initiated the fight, it elevates from a consensual brawl to something else (depending on state and local laws), but once they are “out” they have stopped consensually participating in the fight. Therefore, you need to stop. If you’re an expert, as far as the law is concerned, you’re using a deadly weapon on someone who is “out”, it’s like shooting the guy who tried to steal your handbag in the back as he tries to run away, i.e. murder or attempted murder.

Be careful.[/quote]

But we aren’t/Ms P isn’t teaching her students to fight “consensual” brawls. If someone is teaching people martial arts to get into consensual brawls, then they’d better be prepared to face the consequences for doing so.

We’re talking about self defense situations, which means that you aren’t consensually entering combat, but instead find yourself in a situation where the only choices you have are to defend yourself (or a loved one/innocent) physically or be assaulted. That is a very different situation than a consensual brawl.

In most states you are just as guilty as the other guy if you consensually enter a brawl, while you are justified in using force to defend yourself in a self defense situation.

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But we aren’t/Ms P isn’t teaching her students to fight “consensual” brawls. If someone is teaching people martial arts to get into consensual brawls, then they’d better be prepared to face the consequences for doing so.

We’re talking about self defense situations, which means that you aren’t consensually entering combat, but instead find yourself in a situation where the only choices you have are to defend yourself (or a loved one/innocent) physically or be assaulted. That is a very different situation than a consensual brawl.

In most states you are just as guilty as the other guy if you consensually enter a brawl, while you are justified in using force to defend yourself in a self defense situation. [/quote]

I’m talking in terms of “the law”, and what the laws considers consensual. If someone hits you, and you fight back, instead of trying to run away screaming for help, it’s considered consensual.

I’m sure those “I had no choice but to open of a can of whooopass” situations come along… like 1 in 100,000, because MOST of the time, you could just turn-tail and run, or give them your wallet and then call the cops.

Someone says “give me your wallet”, and you decide to “defend your wallet”, you’re on your own in most states. You’re supposed to give it to them, then call the cops. If you do anything but that, you’re consensually engaging with them.

Now I suppose someone could really just want to hurt you, and if they put you in a situation where they can do serious bodily harm, you are justified in using whatever force necessary to defend. So if you shove their nose into their brain, at that point you’re good. However, if you knock them out, and proceed to beat them once they’re down, it’s a whole other story.

I think we have the ability to imagine (and through that imagining, perhaps create) scenarios where we “have to fight”, but the reality is that most places, especially if you’re not inside your house at the time, you are expected (legally) to run, and go get help.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
But we aren’t/Ms P isn’t teaching her students to fight “consensual” brawls. If someone is teaching people martial arts to get into consensual brawls, then they’d better be prepared to face the consequences for doing so.

We’re talking about self defense situations, which means that you aren’t consensually entering combat, but instead find yourself in a situation where the only choices you have are to defend yourself (or a loved one/innocent) physically or be assaulted. That is a very different situation than a consensual brawl.

In most states you are just as guilty as the other guy if you consensually enter a brawl, while you are justified in using force to defend yourself in a self defense situation. [/quote]

I’m talking in terms of “the law”, and what the laws considers consensual. If someone hits you, and you fight back, instead of trying to run away screaming for help, it’s considered consensual.

I’m sure those “I had no choice but to open of a can of whooopass” situations come along… like 1 in 100,000, because MOST of the time, you could just turn-tail and run, or give them your wallet and then call the cops.

Someone says “give me your wallet”, and you decide to “defend your wallet”, you’re on your own in most states. You’re supposed to give it to them, then call the cops. If you do anything but that, you’re consensually engaging with them.

Now I suppose someone could really just want to hurt you, and if they put you in a situation where they can do serious bodily harm, you are justified in using whatever force necessary to defend. So if you shove their nose into their brain, at that point you’re good. However, if you knock them out, and proceed to beat them once they’re down, it’s a whole other story.

I think we have the ability to imagine (and through that imagining, perhaps create) scenarios where we “have to fight”, but the reality is that most places, especially if you’re not inside your house at the time, you are expected (legally) to run, and go get help.[/quote]

Perhaps in your state, but in most states this is not the case. In most states you are legally justified in utilizing force proportionate to what your attacker uses in order to defend yourself. In other words, if they hit you, you are justified in hitting them back. But, if they hit you with their fist, you aren’t justified in pulling out a firearm and shooting them.

Now, there is a “duty to retreat” law in some states which basically says that as soon as it becomes safe/appropriate to do so, one is legally obligated to flee the seen and contact law enforcement. But the situation is gonna dictate when that occurs. So, like you said, if you KO someone in defense of yourself or a loved one you cannot jump on them and continue to smash their head into the pavement, but instead must retreat to saftey.

That’s not the same thing as saying that we’re talking about consensual combat here though. Consensual combat would be where both parties choose not to retreat (even though it would be appropriate/safe to do so) and instead both agree to fight. Most drunken brawls are consensual fights, the “street fights” that you see videos of on youtube are usually consensual fights.

We’re talking about self defense situations. Situations where you have not purposely put yourself in a dangerous situation, try to use verbal and postural defense tactics to try to avoid escalating the conflict into violence (if at all possible), and basically must resort to physical force in order to defend yourself or an innocent/loved one.

Now you can pretend that these don’t actually happen, and you can make an argument that in most situations physical violence can be avoided (which is true). But we’re talking about training for those worst case scenarios where you can’t, which should comprise a large portion of your training time (since they are the potentially most dangerous and therefore require the most preparation for), but also realizing that if other less severe options are appropriate that one should use those first.

A good self defense system/school will teach you about the moral/legal ramifications/responsibilities involved in physical combat and also discuss things like “level of force” laws and such. But the curriculum had better also comprise of a large portions of “shit hits the fan” type scenario training. Which is what we’re discussing here.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I’m talking in terms of “the law”, and what the laws considers consensual. If someone hits you, and you fight back, instead of trying to run away screaming for help, it’s considered consensual.
[/quote]

That’s unequivocally wrong, and you should refrain from talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

It’s called “Crime,” and it happens quite fucking often.

Prove it.

[quote]
Now I suppose someone could really just want to hurt you, and if they put you in a situation where they can do serious bodily harm, you are justified in using whatever force necessary to defend. So if you shove their nose into their brain, at that point you’re good. However, if you knock them out, and proceed to beat them once they’re down, it’s a whole other story.

I think we have the ability to imagine (and through that imagining, perhaps create) scenarios where we “have to fight”, but the reality is that most places, especially if you’re not inside your house at the time, you are expected (legally) to run, and go get help.[/quote]

You don’t know what you are talking about.

I love the violence

The violence is the best part

[quote]HolyMacaroni wrote:
I love the violence

The violence is the best part[/quote]

My buddy says, “I know violence isn’t the answer. I got it wrong on purpose.”

FightingIrish & Sentoguy are right, Spartiates, I don’t know where you’re getting your info from.

Just something I came across on Marc Macyoung’s website that I thought pertained to this.

Does Krav Work?
Well, it kind of depends on what you’re talking about it ‘working for.’

Fighting?

From what I’ve seen if you take someone and train him hard, instill confidence and tell that he will be able to kick ass and take names (in the next college bar fight he is in), then you have succeeded. I mean that seriously and not in a derogatory way. That person is going to be able to hand out an asskicking – to most people who are interested in fighting them. More than that, the person’s confidence level is going to skyrocket.

However, I’ll say the same thing that I tell people who touch themselves when they think about using their mixed martial arts in an altercation. Take any match you want where two people go at each other. Film it. Then put the participants in street clothes. Change the background to a bar.

Now what do you call what’s on the video?

I call it a fight. What’s more, it’s exactly what the security cameras IN the bar are going to see. And when owner hands it over to the cops and the district attorney, that’s what you’re going to be charged with. You may win the fight, but the court case is going to go against you, because fighting is NOT self-defense.

The same goes for any demo clip where a person demonstrates 'how good Krav is for ‘self-defense.’ Odds are what you are going to see is the person throwing the primary aggressor a beating. This beating continues AFTER the immediate danger has been neutralized (e.g. after disarming the person and knocking him down, stomping him). This is no longer self-defense, it is now outright assault – or in some cases attempted murder.

Will Krav help you win a fight?

Most of the time, yes. But it depends on who you’re fighting. Can and will it do it in short period of time? Again yes. But most of that is through patching and ingraining the willingness to engage fiercely (e.g. three months of ‘rolling’ can and will help you get over your fear of getting hurt and timidity). You WILL be more willing to fight.

While the watered down version of Krav Maga that is commonly taught to civilians is not combat system, it most definitely IS a fighting system. While that is fine and dandy, fighting is illegal. So too is assault and attempted murder. I cannot stress this element strongly enough. If you aren’t being taught the legal standards of self-defense in your training, then you aren’t getting self-defense training.

From this you might suspect that I’m ‘down on Krav Maga.’ No I’m not, I just have the same problem I have with any advertiser that offers a simplistic answer to the complex issue of violence and self-defense. This is especially true when the answer boils down to fighting being presented as something else. There’s a whole lot more involved in self defense than just beating the snot out of someone – especially if you want to stay out of county jail or prison.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Krav.html

Also this.

http://www.useofforce.us/

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Just something I came across on Marc Macyoung’s website that I thought pertained to this.

Does Krav Work?
Well, it kind of depends on what you’re talking about it ‘working for.’

Fighting?

From what I’ve seen if you take someone and train him hard, instill confidence and tell that he will be able to kick ass and take names (in the next college bar fight he is in), then you have succeeded. I mean that seriously and not in a derogatory way. That person is going to be able to hand out an asskicking – to most people who are interested in fighting them. More than that, the person’s confidence level is going to skyrocket.

However, I’ll say the same thing that I tell people who touch themselves when they think about using their mixed martial arts in an altercation. Take any match you want where two people go at each other. Film it. Then put the participants in street clothes. Change the background to a bar.

Now what do you call what’s on the video?

I call it a fight. What’s more, it’s exactly what the security cameras IN the bar are going to see. And when owner hands it over to the cops and the district attorney, that’s what you’re going to be charged with. You may win the fight, but the court case is going to go against you, because fighting is NOT self-defense.

The same goes for any demo clip where a person demonstrates 'how good Krav is for ‘self-defense.’ Odds are what you are going to see is the person throwing the primary aggressor a beating. This beating continues AFTER the immediate danger has been neutralized (e.g. after disarming the person and knocking him down, stomping him). This is no longer self-defense, it is now outright assault – or in some cases attempted murder.

Will Krav help you win a fight?

Most of the time, yes. But it depends on who you’re fighting. Can and will it do it in short period of time? Again yes. But most of that is through patching and ingraining the willingness to engage fiercely (e.g. three months of ‘rolling’ can and will help you get over your fear of getting hurt and timidity). You WILL be more willing to fight.

While the watered down version of Krav Maga that is commonly taught to civilians is not combat system, it most definitely IS a fighting system. While that is fine and dandy, fighting is illegal. So too is assault and attempted murder. I cannot stress this element strongly enough. If you aren’t being taught the legal standards of self-defense in your training, then you aren’t getting self-defense training.

From this you might suspect that I’m ‘down on Krav Maga.’ No I’m not, I just have the same problem I have with any advertiser that offers a simplistic answer to the complex issue of violence and self-defense. This is especially true when the answer boils down to fighting being presented as something else. There’s a whole lot more involved in self defense than just beating the snot out of someone – especially if you want to stay out of county jail or prison.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/Krav.html[/quote]

Yes, it does pertain. I agree with much of this, which is why I brought up the question, as you know. The one thing I’ve wondered most about is the head stomp. We are taught to finish a downed attacker with a stomp or kick to the head. I was okay with doing this because I’d been taught that as a female against a larger male, if I am able to get him to fall to the ground I’d better make sure he stays there or he’ll get up and hand me my ass. But as I said in the beginning, most of my students are male. The rules are much stricter for them in these matters, so I worry about what they take away from class.

I discovered a head stomp is harder than it looks when I was stomping the Bob dummy’s head & my foot kept rolling off. Also I saw a Pride fighter do a head stomp and it was horrifying. And his foot rolled off, too, which reassured me that I wasn’t crazy.

I like the part in the article where he says that instilling the willingness to fight fiercely will help you win the fight. He seems to believe that this willingness to fight is very important, perhaps to the exclusion of particular techniques, since he doesn’t mention technique in this part of the article. (I haven’t clicked on the link yet, I have to go buy groceries. :slight_smile: ) I agree this willingness to fight is something most untrained people don’t seem to have, and must be drawn out. Outside of brawlers, of course.

Just for the record, we don’t tolerate troublemakers or people who like to fight outside the studio. They tend to show themselves fairly quickly & we get rid of them.

I feel like as long as you know you are in control of yourself its ok. If you know a student cant handle it then cut them.