From: eskrima-digest-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: eskrima-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #473 Reply-To: eskrima@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: eskrima-digest-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest Tues, 9 Nov 1999 Vol 06 : Num 473 In this issue: eskrima: another B-Day coming up... eskrima: Re: Other weapons eskrima: Re: Mas Ayoob/Legal eskrima: More legal/moral stuff eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 - weapons an whatnot eskrima: Footbaggin' eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #472 Re: eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 - weapons an whatnot eskrima: Re: P.Christian's comments & a responses eskrima: Dan Inosanto book eskrima: . ========================================================================== Eskrima-Digest, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~1100 members strong! Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, Inayan Eskrima, and Martial Arts Resource Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe eskrima-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a plain text e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use eskrima@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and online search the last four years worth of digest issues at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Ray Terry, PO Box 110841, Campbell, CA 95011 FMA@MartialArtsResource.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:07:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: eskrima: another B-Day coming up... Any US Marines out there? Happy Birthday! (on Wednesday) Ray Terry rterry@best.com ------------------------------ From: Todd Ellner Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 16:27:16 -0800 Subject: eskrima: Re: Other weapons "Patrick Christian" writes: >Along the discusssion of carrying weapons for self defense, what are the >legal ramifications for carrying other weapons than knives and guns (i.e. an >Asp)? I keep one in my car and sometimes carry it. Check the laws in your jurisdiction. In Britain you'll get nailed for having a hair brush if you keep it for self defense under the offensive weapon laws. In California IMS carrying an escrima stick is technically a felony. ASPs were legal the last I heard in Philadelphia. In Oregon the laws covering "dangerous weapons" have more to do with intent and concealment than they do with the shape of the object. A lot of it comes down to what the officer who sees you with it thinks of you. My favorite example is a baseball bat. If you have it in your car weighing down a pile of "Join the Hammerskins" pamphlets you will have some serious problems here in Puddletown. But if you have a ball, a glove, and a baseball cap that's entirely different. Being clean and neat and acting respectfully to Officer Friendly also makes a world of difference if the artifact is questionable. I personally have a machete, a six C-cell maglite, and an entrenching tool in my truck. But I also have a tow chain, jumper cables, road flares, and a big bag of kitty litter. That makes me a responsible citizen who drives on rural Oregon highways a lot. Not, as some wag here suggested, a psycho who knocks people unconscious, chops them into tiny bits, and buries the bits. [The bag of kitty litter can be used for temporary traction if you get stuck in the mud. It dissolves after a while, but it can give you enough friction for long enough to get the wheels onto something dry.] Todd ------------------------------ From: Todd Ellner Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:17:14 -0800 Subject: eskrima: Re: Mas Ayoob/Legal "Dave Huang" writes: >Mas is well respected for what he does, however, to my knowledge, he is not >an attorney. I am not sure who gives his legal section, if he does or not. He's not an attorney, but he is a prosecutor (New Hampshire allows non- lawyers to perform this duty). He's also recognized as an expert in this narrow field of law. You don't have to be a lawyer to be an authority in some legal field. You do have to be one to hang out your shingle as an attorney and offer legal services. >To say that defense lawyers are trained to hide the truth and not defend the >person on trial, well, no. That basically shows a narrow field of vision. >Such broad generalizations are indicative of some greater philosophical >difference or prejudice IMO. Well, I'll admit to a deep and abiding prejudice against lawyers - my father and grandfather were physicians :-) But there is a grain or two of truth in the contention. Most defense attorneys do not get many cases of legitimate self-defense. The techniques and tools they are most familiar with are geared towards what they see most often - getting serious violent crime charges reduced to something lesser such as murder -> manslaughter. An affirmative defense ("I did it, but it was entirely the right thing to do") doesn't come around all that often. Most of the defense attorneys I know have never handled a case like this. >Furthermore, keep in mind that much of the "legal" sections for self defense >courses are distilled versions of the law. You can only graze the surface of >this topic in 1, 2, 3 hours. The intricacies of criminal law are many. Yeah. It would be wonderful if we could spend twenty or so hours just on that, but in a twenty to forty hour course you have to pick and choose. I prefer a fairly conservative approach to the subject - less intricate and complete but less likely to cause erring toward the shady side of the law. Todd ------------------------------ From: Todd Ellner Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:37:27 -0800 Subject: eskrima: More legal/moral stuff "Patrick Christian" writes: >Here's an rough opinion that I haven't seen in regards to knife defense: If >a person attacks you with intent to kill; isn't it our duty as trained >personnel to take the person out of the gene pool as it were? This might be a defensible moral or religious position. Anyone who knows me will gladly say that I'm not qualified to talk about anything to do with morals, and my religious viewpoint is that if G-d is indeed "The Merciful, the Compassionate" like the Muslims say, then I might just squeak by. Otherwise I'm in real trouble... So all I can talk about is the little bit of legal stuff I've picked up over the years and some ethical concerns. Basically, the viewpoint you are espousing will (and I quote Mr. Ayoob here) get you the coveted position of "Bride of Mongo" in the penitentiary. The Common Law tradition that underlies the legal system in the English speaking world holds that you, a private citizen, never have a duty to kill another person. You have a right to defend yourself or another innocent person from the unjust use of force by another. If there is no other way to avoid being murdered, greivously injured, raped, forcibly sodomized, kidnapped, subjected to armed robbery, or have your house burned down with you inside it you may be justified in using deadly force to do it. It is still a bad thing to do - the law holds that human life is a Good Thing (tm), and ending it is generally a Bad Thing (tm). But the death or maiming of an innocent person at the hands of someone went out of his way to do something heinous is a Really Bad Thing (tm), so it is considered the lesser evil to cause the death of the attacker if that is the only reasonable option you have. But once the bad guy is incapable of harming you or runs away (most of the time - it can get tricky and complicated here) or otherwise stops being a threat the crime is over. You aren't preventing a crime any more. If you kick him again in the crotch just because you're angry or shoot him in the back as he tries to get away from you there's a new crime being committed, and YOU are the one who's doing it. >I'm thinking >with regards to the next person that may be attacked by this nutcase. They >may have no training, be female and or a child. I know we can't answer "what >if's", but if you are attacked out of the blue (i.e. mugger/ rapist), then >you can pretty well bet that you are not the first person to be attacked nor >will you be the last. Unless you do something about it... You can stop the crime. If he runs away from you and heads towards Jane Q. Public waving his axe and screaming "I'm going to kill you!" you might be able to make a case that he's about to harm someone else and needs to be stopped. You can't legally zip someone because you think he might commit a crime later. You can hold him for the police. You can testify at his trial. But if you do him because you think the planet could continue rotating perfectly well without him you are making a really big mistake from a legal and ethical point of view. Todd ------------------------------ From: "Cory Eicher" Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:39:13 CST Subject: eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 what exactly is a berkley stomp? ========================================= Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: Todd Ellner Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:45:19 -0800 Subject: eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 - weapons an whatnot I will not get involved in a gun control argument. I will not get involved in a gun control argument. I will not get involved in a gun control argument.... But I WILL correct some technical misconceptions here... "Jon Howard" writes: >>So the question is "Can >>knives be more humane weapons then guns because of this control factor? >>Would you >>rather give your attacker a slash to the arm, face, leg etc... than put a >>bullet in >>his brain to stop him from attacking you with a nonprojectile weapon if you >>must. Not everyone is as crazy as we are. Most people do not spend several hours a week getting sweaty, learning new ways to disassemble people, and playing with knives. In fact, most of us who have been around the block more than once would really REALLY prefer not to get into a knife fight. Being able to deal with someone before s/he gets within arms reach is a REALLY GOOD THING. Being able to deter someone so that they decide that whatever they want is not worth what they feel they will have to pay to get it is an even better one. Firearms make excellent deterrents. In almost every single case where they are used in self defense the bad guy takes a look, solves a simple equation in economic calculus and discovers his ass elsewhere. In the cases where it doesn't work out that way, putting many bullets into him so that he leaks and important things stop working before you get into that knife fight is a result devoutly to be wished for. There are another couple of things at work here. Even when one accounts for skill strength and size are significant factors in an unarmed or "cold" weapon confrontation. I'd much rather deal with Mongo using a tool which doesn't depend on my being as big, as strong, as mean, or on as good drugs as Mongo. I'm going to lose on all four counts. Also, while about the same percentage of stabbing victims die as do those shot with handguns the percentage who are stopped quickly by being shot is much higher. Trust me on this. It's been studied a lot. It can take a long time for someone to lose enough fluids to lose blood pressure after being stabbed or cut. At the last AWSDA conference I spent an instructive two hours after lunch being told just how hard it is to stop someone by whittling on him. The guy doing the lecturing is an NYPD forensics specialist. On the other hand there are handgun loads which, when properly aimed, stop in one or two shots 90% of the time. Up close I'd rather have the pig-sticker. Far away (where I always prefer to address trouble) I'd rather have Gaston Glock's lasting contribution to World Peace. Different tools for different conditions. >Duh - couldn't you just shoot the guy in the leg ???? Yes, and the odds are he will keep coming. Police and the people who train them have spent a lot of time and energy studying what works and what doesn't. The pelvis, the central nervous system and the things that carry a lot of blood (heart, great vessels, liver) are what one shoots to reliably stop motivated violent people. >This is of course >providing that the first time you pull a gun, you can actually focus on (let >alone hit) a target smaller than the side of a building, It's not that hard. I'm no Ray Chapman, but I picked up enough of the basics for bare competence in a couple of afternoons while burning off about 300 rounds. Twenty hours of really top notch instruction a couple weeks ago and moderate polishing of my skills have made me a decent shooter at up to about 15 meters. Under stress. Most defensive handgun use happens at significantly shorter ranges. >I should imagine >most people would miss the target by miles and probably plug some poor >innocent sucker on the other side of the street - Friendly fire anyone! You should imagine it, but you'd be wrong. Very very wrong. The number of accidental homicides with firearms is vanishingly small. And many of these are actually suicides mis-reported for the sake of some poor widow's insurance settlement. The percentage of private citizen DGUs where an innocent person is hit is about an order of magnitude less than the same for trained police officers. When cops shoot someone there are lots of confounding factors. Under stress people are pretty good about pointing at what they perceive as the threat. It's instinctive. Not to say that more practice isn't always called for, but that's the reality. >There was a study conducted a few years back that identified three major >targets for dropping someone INSTANTLY with a gun (regardless of calibre), >I can dig out more info if required. > 1. The head. > 2. The centre line of the body (the spinal cord) > 3. The long bones of the legs > (obviously 1 and 2 are more lethal than 3) You're wrong. The long bones of the leg are a lousy target for quick sure stops. The pelvis, the center of mass (spine, heart, and great vessels) and the brain pan (not the head) give you the best chance of stopping someone. But bullet size and design make a lot of difference. And the spinal column is a very thin target. The head moves around a lot. And if you shoot someone in the pelvis with something large, fast, and heavy he will very probably drop to the floor and not get up, but if he has a projectile weapon he can still shoot you. Come to think of it, even shots to the head have different effects. If you take out someone's brain stem he stops being a problem. But if you hit the frontal bone at an angle or the jaw or the top of the head there is an excellent chance that he will keep coming. Bullets have been known to skip off teeth. And so on. >I wonder how many "good 'ole boys" carry the biggest, meanest, baddest >looking piece, with super hollow point wadcutting slugs as a way of "wanking >(jacking off for you yanks) their ego". Dude, I didn't want to bring your sex life into this, but you've brought mine in, so here goes. My pistol has a barrell that's about a third of an inch across and two inches long. If this is some sort of monster phallic symbol to you, then it's your poor wife I feel sorry for. And I don't carry it to jack off. I carry it as a specialized piece of safety equipment which is useful only in a very limited set of circumstances, not unlike a fire extinguisher. But in those few cases where it is appropriate to use it I really need it, and nothing else will do quite as well. Your evident bigotry aside, you are ignorant. A "hollow point wadcutting" bullet is kind of a contradiction in terms. If you're going to be a prejudiced putz, kindly become an informed one. It is much more amusing. The people who deal with firearms and bother to become informed on the subject have found that caliber and bullet design do indeed make an awful lot of difference as to how effective they are. The larger common self defense calibers (above .380 and below .44) are much more likely to stop an assailant than the smaller ones. Full metal jacket (ball) and round nose lead bullets are much less likely to stop an attacker in a small number of shots than are modern hollowpoint ones. In fact, the hollowpoints are much less deadly in a self defense situation. If you hit someone with one or two of them there is a very good chance you will stop him. And the probability that you will cut something he needs to survive is therefore less. But if you have to shoot him a dozen times with RNL before he stops the odds of you destroying something he absolutely can't do without are slim. If, G-d forbid, I ever have to shoot another human being I don't want him dead next week. I want him stopped right now whether or not he is dead is immaterial. So it behooves me to use a cartridge that will give me the greatest chance of stopping him. >Jon... >(heap big feather rustler) Todd ------------------------------ From: Kalki Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:52:02 -0600 Subject: eskrima: Footbaggin' A little while ago I made a comment re: origins of footbag games. Someone commented that the Native Americans did not play any type of footbag game(s). I took the information from the global footbag site ... more complete listing is as follows ... Footbag Facts Where did footbag come from? Footbag is a modern American version of an ancient sport played in Asia and in North America. In 1972, John Stalberger met Mike Marshall, who had been playing around with a Native American game which involved kicking a small, soft object. John had recently had knee surgery and was looking for a way to work on his flexibility, and he instantly took to the game and become good friends with Marshall. They called the game, "hacking the sack." ------------------------------ From: "Patrick Christian" Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:25:12 -0500 Subject: eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #472 Here's an rough opinion that I haven't seen in regards to knife defense: If >a person attacks you with intent to kill; isn't it our duty as trained >personnel to take the person out of the gene pool as it were? I'm thinking >with regards to the next person that may be attacked by this nutcase. They >may have no training, be female and or a child. I know we can't answer "what >if's", but if you are attacked out of the blue (i.e. mugger/ rapist), then >you can pretty well bet that you are not the first person to be attacked nor >will you be the last. Unless you do something about it... > Okay gang, I want to thank everyone for their replies. I also want to especially thank Tom, Branwen Thomas and Haru Taka for actually understanding what I was trying to state. Here are some ideas and explanations of what I previously wrote (including a self-critique). 1. While what I stated is a possibility, I was mainly being the devil's advocate. I'm a pretty easy going guy and a pacifist until such a situation rises ( I hope it NEVER does for any of us). 2. The 3 rules that I live by regarding self defense using a knife are: 1. Don't carry a knife unless you plan to use it if needed. 2. Don't pull out your knife unless you plan to use it. 3. Don't use your knife unless you plan to pay the consequences, whatever they may be. 3. As my instuctor, Lahong Guro Steve Klement (Inayan School of Eskrima) states, in a real knife fight one person dies and the other goes to the hospital. It is better to make the decision of which one you plan to be before you HAVE to. 4. This is directed to Jon Howard: I do not have a station or a class. This is not medieval England!! If you did not know, we beat them a while back!! 5. This too is directed to the one known as Jon Howard: Your statement "What gives you the right to decide who should and shouldn't live." leaves me no choice but to answer. If someone attacks me with the intent to kill then they themselves have given me the right to choose what I do about it. It has long been a tenet of this country that you have all the rights given to any citizen until you try to take away another citizen's rights. 6. I do not agree with vigilantyism (is that a word?). What I am trying to discuss is based on an instance of opportunity. So I hope that will make me the better person if this were to happen to me. 7. Read # 2 again. 8. While laws are great and they help to form a society that can live together, they do not and will not ever replace morality. I personally try to do what is right (I fail all the time;) and not what I think is legal. That is all for right now. Once again I want to state that I hope no one ever has to face this problem. Now does anyone have any critiques???? PC Inayan School of Eskrima Lenoir City, TN ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:04:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: eskrima: Re: Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #471 - weapons an whatnot > >This is of course > >providing that the first time you pull a gun, you can actually focus on (let > >alone hit) a target smaller than the side of a building, > > It's not that hard. I'm no Ray Chapman, but I picked up enough of the > basics for bare competence in a couple of afternoons while burning off > about 300 rounds. Twenty hours of really top notch instruction a couple > weeks ago and moderate polishing of my skills have made me a decent > shooter at up to about 15 meters. Under stress. I agree that you're not Ray Chapman :) , but I disagree with most of the rest of the above. Take another ~200 hours of really top notch instruction over the next year or three and see if you still think the same. I suspect you will not, but I will pray with you that you will be able to execute when you're under real crap-your-pants-type stress. We just don't know if we can 'front-sight, press' while taking incoming until we are forced to try. Ray Terry raymail@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Patrick Davies Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 09:54:35 -0000 Subject: eskrima: Re: P.Christian's comments & a responses PC: > If >a person attacks you with intent to kill; isn't it our duty as trained >personnel to take the person out of the gene pool as it were? I'm thinking >with regards to the next person that may be attacked by this nutcase. They >may have no training, be female and or a child. I know we can't answer"what >if's", but if you are attacked out of the blue (i.e. mugger/ rapist), then >you can pretty well bet that you are not the first person to be attacked nor >will you be the last. Unless you do something about it... > Jon: Where the hell do you start responding to this one.!!!!!! What gives you the right to decide who should and should'nt live. Tom: I think Patrick raises a somewhat valid point. snip BTW, what's with the backhanded swipe at Christianity? Jocelyne: Jon Howard: WHOA. while I understand your response, and agree that we are not (in the general scheme of things) each other's judges/ keepers/watchdogs etc., it is a valid question, if stated somewhat bluntly. Snip Me! : I would agree with Jon and say that it is not our right to make that autocratic decision. Where does it start and stop. The word duty is a problem as it implies a moral and legal legitimacy to the act. Who is to say that the guy with the knife is mugging you because he is a victim of the governments innept ability to have dealt with the issues dealing with poverty and therefore this is the only way that the person can actually survive. Suddenly there is a moral legitimacy to his act. Its easy to twist things into a perspective that suits opinion. Plus where does the morality come from? Whats right for some is a crime for others and this is an international list with many different cultures which will or will not tolerate many things. Hey! Some countries eat dogs, some take them for walks and some name themselves after them! ; ) While there is wealth in self defence if you only treat the symptom the cause only gets worse. Taking Joe Mugger out of the gene pool is not the answer. But that's my opinion. pat ------------------------------ From: "R. Huijssoon" Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:59:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: eskrima: Dan Inosanto book Hi there, can anyone help me to obtain a copy of Dan Inosantos book Filipino Martial Arts? It is out of print and I haven't been able to find it on the net (www.proxis.com and others) Sincerely, Ruud ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:26:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: eskrima: . ------------------------------ End of Inayan_Eskrima/FMA-Digest V6 #473 **************************************** To unsubscribe from this digest, eskrima-digest, send the command: unsubscribe eskrima-digest -or- unsubscribe eskrima-digest your.old@address in the BODY of an email (top line, left justified) addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com in directory pub/eskrima/digests. All digest files have the suffix '.txt' Copyright 1994-99: Ray Terry, Inayan Eskrima, and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply.