Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:57:02 -0700 From: eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: Eskrima digest, Vol 11 #392 - 8 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.13.cisto1 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13.cisto1 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net X-Subscribed-Address: fma@martialartsresource.com List-Id: Eskrima-FMA discussion forum, the premier FMA forum on the Internet. List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Help: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on behemoth2.host4u.net X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: Send Eskrima mailing list submissions to eskrima@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to eskrima-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at eskrima-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Eskrima digest..." <<---- The Sudlud-Inayan Eskrima/Kali/Arnis/FMA mailing list ---->> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2004: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Filipino Martial Arts. 1900 members. Provided in memory of Mangisursuro Michael G. Inay (1944-2000). See the Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of the Eskrima/FMA digest at http://MartialArtsResource.com Mabuhay ang eskrima! Today's Topics: 1. RE: Dog fighting (Karen Pence) 2. funny story (Ray Terry) 3. Armed vs. Unarmed (Tom Skoglind) 4. Re: Armed vs. Unarmed (Ray Terry) 5. Re: woodytx (WoodyTX) 6. Re: Combat smell test (Marc Macyoung) 7. planning for success (Marc Macyoung) 8. Dog Fights, the Combat Question, & Gunny Hathcock (Buz Grover) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "Karen Pence" To: Subject: RE: [Eskrima] Dog fighting Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:04:42 -0500 Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net There is a guy in my neighborhood that walks every day, and he carry's a big walking stick to defend him self. He has been charged by a pit bull in the neighborhood before. Fortunately, the dog didn't attack him, but scared the bejesus out of him.... We had an incident on Sunday, where 2 pit bulls were allowed to run loose, went into the neighbors garage, chased the cat out of the garage, and proceeded to catch it and tore it to pieces. What is that had been a child. Karen Pence -----Original Message----- From: H R [mailto:goodguy_no_01@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:39 PM To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Dog fighting Damn... a pitbull has jaws like that? Seriously, what would you suggest if I saw one running towards me, because in all honesty, I don't know if I'd have the endurance to outrun a pitbull for an extended period of time? Arndt Mallepree wrote: In my job as a cop I saw some pitbull attacks. The thing as I see today is, that you cannot say that there is a way to deal with a dog attack meaning dogs in general and pitbulls specifically. Normal dogs can be hit on the nose while trying to catch your arm (good if you put your jacket around the arm). The dog will stop attacking you and if it has bitten your arm already it will let it go! A pitbull will not let go in such a situation because of anatomical reasons. Even if you kill the dog, you will still have to cut the chin muscle in order to open the mouth. Luckily I never had a pitbull on my arm - cause we could shoot it before! Just my experiences with pitbulls! Take care Arndt www.ifcm.de --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list, 1900 members Eskrima@martialartsresource.net Copyright 1994-2004: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima --__--__-- Message: 2 From: Ray Terry To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Eskrima] funny story Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > So I guess that calling my school "Extreme Tactical Combat Arnis" is a > no-no? > he-he A funny story, imho. There is this fellow that briefly studied serrada under Gm Angel, learning all the way up to angle #5. I guess that was enough as he then decided to go out and form his own style, calling it Combat Escrima (CE). Anyway, two of this fellow's top students pay a visit to one of Angel's earliest, and long time, students. The fellow is working in his garage as the two CE guys stop by telling him that they want to show him "Combat Escrima". The fellow goes around and shuts the garage door, locking the three of them inside... together. After getting beat about the head and shoulders and hands and arms and ... the two CE fellows ask very nicely if they may leave. The garage door is opened again and as the two CE fellows leave they are wisely advised to not term their art Combat Escrima unless they can really engage in combat, as eskrima -is- combat. That perhaps doesn't fit Marc's smell test, but I still love telling that story... :) Ray Terry rterry@idiom.com --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "Tom Skoglind" To: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:57:47 -0500 Subject: [Eskrima] Armed vs. Unarmed Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Following the threads detailing the use of weapons against a now unarmed or disarmed attacker, I am interested in opinions from perspectives of legal/ethical/and personal protection. Consider the following situation: An intruder armed with and visibly brandishing a knife is in my kitchen. I confront him and tell him to get out. He responds by attacking me with the knife. By some miracle, I not only manage a successful defense, but disarm and retain the weapon. Many posts I have read suggest at this point that the tide of the altercation has turned, and for me to now use the knife is no longer self-defense, or legally sound. My question is this. This person has already broken into my home, wielding a weapon, and demonstrated a willingness to use it with the intention of harming or killing. How sure can I be that he doesn't have any more weapons? Knives are small, easy to conceal, and inexpensive. Given the nature of this person, can I risk it? If I do not do something to incapacitate him, I am betting my life, literally, and the lives of my entire family that he only had one weapon. I have but a fraction of a second, in the dark, with adrenaline dumping in huge quantities to make a decision. Personally, I do not think I could gamble with the lives of my family. Based on the above, I still consider this person a lethal threat and am afraid for my life even though I do not see a weapon. Thoughts? Tom Skoglind IFE Katiwala Instructor www.inayaneskrima.com skoglind@inayaneskrima.com Inayan Federation of Eskrima --__--__-- Message: 4 From: Ray Terry Subject: Re: [Eskrima] Armed vs. Unarmed To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Following the threads detailing the use of weapons against a now unarmed or > disarmed attacker, I am interested in opinions from perspectives of > legal/ethical/and personal protection. Consider the following situation: An > intruder armed with and visibly brandishing a knife is in my kitchen. I > confront him and tell him to get out. He responds by attacking me with the > knife. By some miracle, I not only manage a successful defense, but disarm and > retain the weapon. Many posts I have read suggest at this point that the tide > of the altercation has turned, and for me to now use the knife is no longer > self-defense, or legally sound. > > My question is this. This person has already broken into my home, wielding a > weapon, and demonstrated a willingness to use it with the intention of harming > or killing. How sure can I be that he doesn't have any more weapons? Knives > are small, easy to conceal, and inexpensive. Given the nature of this person, > can I risk it? If I do not do something to incapacitate him, I am betting my > life, literally, and the lives of my entire family that he only had one > weapon. I have but a fraction of a second, in the dark, with adrenaline > dumping in huge quantities to make a decision. Personally, I do not think I > could gamble with the lives of my family. Based on the above, I still consider > this person a lethal threat and am afraid for my life even though I do not see > a weapon. Thoughts? Tom, first check the penal code and case law for your state and locality. Things will differ depending on whether you are in Texas, California, Mass, etc. One idea is to take an NRA Personal Protection class in your hometown. Cheap, good, and part of the class is to be taught by a 'friend of the court' in that locale. It all comes down to the justified use of deadly force, the weapon typically does not matter. e.g. in Texas I believe (cya) one is justified in using deadly force to protect property. In California I believe (cya) if you find that someone has broken into your home you may assume they are there to do you bodily harm and deadly force is justified on your part. Folks, check this for yourself as YMMV. In your specific example, IN GENERAL, if the person continues the attack after you have disarmed them I believe (cya) deadly force is justified on your part since you can reasonably assume that your life is in danger. If after you have disarmed them they turn and attempt to leave the scene, then deadly force is typically NOT justified on your part. Contrast what I said above re California w/Mass. I believe (cya) in that state if someone breaks into your home and attempts to do you serious bodily harm you must make every possible attempt to vacate your home, by -any- means possible, before using deadly force to protect yourself. However I'll temper my above statements with... regardless of the penal code and case law in your locale a lot will depend on the specific details of your particular case and how the DA wishes to proceed. And perhaps whether it is an election year. Any "real" lawyers out there wish to agree or disagree? :) Ray Terry rterry@idiom.com --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:00:51 -0500 From: WoodyTX To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: Re: [Eskrima] woodytx Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Not if you appeal to the under-25 set, and sell Mountain Dew in the lobby... :-) WoodyTX On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:45:37 -0400, rob mulligan wrote: > So I guess that calling my school "Extreme Tactical Combat Arnis" is a > no-no? > he-he > > Rob Mulligan > kwikstik.com > > _________________________________________________________________ > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Eskrima mailing list, 1900 members > Eskrima@martialartsresource.net > Copyright 1994-2004: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource > Standard disclaimers apply > http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima --__--__-- Message: 6 From: "Marc Macyoung" To: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:09:30 -0600 Subject: [Eskrima] Re: Combat smell test Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net > From: Ray Terry > "Koreans also had better field intelligence than their American counterparts. > Koreans did counterinsurgency operations so well that American commanders felt > Korean AOR is the safest. Uhhhh.... might I point out that is a VERY sanatized version of their operational MO? I know guys who worked with the ROKs and well, putting it mildly, these special forces guys were a little unnerved by exactly how the Koreans aquired their intel. They also were uncomfortable with the extremes that the ROKs took their version of "psychological" warfare in order to keep the AO quiet. If the SEALS, Rangers and LRRPs were feared by the NVA/VC, it was nothing in comparison to the terror that the ROKs instilled because they didn't have many of the hesitations that Westerners did. In fact, they kinda made the Phoenix boys look all kinds of cute and cuddly. That kill ratio isn't exaggerated, but one needs to realize what they did to get it. >Koreans used deadly hand-to-hand > combat equally as destructive fire control." I'm not contesting that they used blades. In fact, I kind of know that some of the psych out stuff that was done on the NVA was impossible with a gun. As such, yes knives were very much a part of operations. Ever heard my story about Allen Khan? The guy who showed me the difference between fighting and combat in a -- thank gawd -- non-lethal way? It was his job to sneak into the vil and redecorate the head Viet Min's hooch in the middle of the night in order to send a message to the rest of the villagers that the communists weren't invincible. Knife work was very much his forte. Having said that, your contention was it was the "preferred" weapon of certain special ops groups. I maintain it is a weapon that was used for specific jobs rather than being categorically preferred in general combat. In the same vein, if you look at the use of blades in Rwanda and Sudan it is not against armed soliders, but rather unarmed citizens. When you do this you realize that it is more of a terror weapon than it is of effective genocide. When you are working towrard actual genocide, I look at the Nazis, Turks and Khemer Rouge as more effective to that end. A lot of the Jawnjaweed are doing in the Sudan is to drive out non Arabs, not necessarily to kill them all. The same about Hutus and the Tutsi in Rwanda. Both created more refugees and death through starvation and deprevation than actual committed murders. But again, creating terror and victimizing civilians is not combat. Therefore using these examples to show the combat proven effectiveness of a knife, much less an empty handed fighting style is a red herring argument. In CQC, yes, pistols, bayonets, swords, kukaris, knives, hell even trenching tools are used...but does anyone except people who want to believe that they study some deadly "combat" system believe that is the preferred range of combat? I know a number of people who have been in situations where their position was over run...they still shot. If it did go to "hand to hand," clubs were preferred, then came knives. Even the Tunnel Rats that I know preferred pistols and you can't get much closer CQC than that. --__--__-- Message: 7 From: "Marc Macyoung" To: Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:21:47 -0600 Subject: [Eskrima] planning for success Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net WoodyTX sed > I'm no lawyer, but I doubt that a jury would convict you if you took > your assailant's knife and killed him with it. Just because you > disarmed him AS HE TRIED TO KILL YOU does not mean that you are now > murdering a man in cold blood. It may surprise you, but there are many states where "He needed killing" is not considered a legitimate motive for killing someone. I know it has worked in Texas before...but there are places where it just doesn't fly. Kind of like not every state has a "make my day law" like Colorado -- where I now live. Being from California, and having lived in several other states, I can assure you that things can get legally squirrelly elsewhere. Having said that, I stood in my front room with three lawyers, two cops, and a federal air marshal (who is himself an expert witness on use of force) and we watched a tape where after starting a fight in a bar (the "hero" initiated physical contact, egro, he is the initial aggressor), a guy ends up facing a knife. The hero takes the knife away, knocks down his opponent and then kneels down stabs him on the ground. Oh, then he flees the bar. Which somehow I doubt was him rushing to the police station to report the incident. The ensuing argument wasn't if the guy was going to be arrested and charged. That was a given. The question was if the knifer could have gotten off. The final tally was a 75% consensus that the guy would have been convicted on manslaughter. The 25% was based on him having a sterling defense lawyer. Who could effectively argue "heat of the moment et all" (Oh BTW, there is a legal difference between murder and manslaughter, both will get you into trouble, go to the Lectric Law Library on line and take a peek at the definitions). They may charge him with 3rd degree murder, knowing that there is good chance it won't stick, but still get the manslaughter rap to stick. The problem is, the guy was reacting exactly how he had been trained in the "deadly knife fighting art" that this tape was about. Let me, for the record, state that use of lethal force standards are not a martial arts issue. Nor is it a matter of your own opinion of what justifies using it. It is a legal issue. An issue that your actions must conform to, not the other way around. This is no "what if I get attacked by 27 uzi wielding ninjas" issue. There are standards, criteria and conditions that you are legally justified to use a blade on another human being. If the situation doesn't warrant it, then you better have yourself either a fine defense attorney or know how to lose a body in a dumpster. Bottomline here folks, when it comes to knife work, you HAVE to plan for success. There is no "What if it doesn't work." Knives WORK! You slash at someone and connect, he is going to get cut. Will that cut do all the things you hope it will do? Well maybe, maybe not or maybe it will do more than you hope or want.. But it will do what blades do and that is to cut, stab, slash, hack or lop. Once that happens then you have to live with the repercussions of that. AND since using a knife on another human being is considered a lethal force issue, instead of you speculating on "Well if I ever had to use it I'd..." I recommend going and taking Massad Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force to see exactly what standards your actions will be judged by IF it ever does happen. While I normally limit myself to critiquing what is being taught (and providing legitimate reasons for those critiques) on this issue I must admit that I travel into cricticism when it comes to how many martial artists view the "power" that they have and the responsiblities encumbent on them. It is a macho fantasy to think that you have the power to kill another human being and that you will not be held accountable if you do so. You have to expect results from excercising this power. No where else have I seen such a flat-out assumption of the failure to perform as I have in the martial arts world. If you don't believe that what you know will work, then it is no problem, you don't have to learn the realities of what occurs from the use of your training. If you believe that the steel knife will magically turn into a rubber practice blade and not hurt your opponent, then you are fine not knowing laws regarding use of lethal force. If you, down deep, don't think that the deadly art you are studying won't work then you are fine, only having a remedial aquaintence of use of force laws/standards. Because quite honestly, if it doesn't work, you don't need to know this information. You can go back to studying the art for arts sake. And there is nothing the matter with that. Just don't think that it is for "self-defense." But if your system DOES work. If it is anywhere near as good as you think it is and if you think you might have to use it, then you had damn well better do some serious research into subject. Get your information from legitimate outside sources, (not the same place where you are studying your art unless your guru is also a criminal defense attorney). If it works, you need to be prepared for success. Because there will be results and repercussions. Unfortunately, most people I have encountered give this nothing more than a passing nod (like the idiot I actually saw teach a neck break from behind and then tell his students that it was for "self-defense only" What's worse is they believed him).This is what I mean when I say "Martial artists often don't plan for success" I came up with this after working with a lot of firearms instructors. Training in that field based on the assumption of success. That's because they know that when a gun goes bang, there are going to be results. Dealing with these results is not something that is just mentioned in passing, it is a large part of the training; and it is even more an influential component in the design of the training itself. Knowing how to strike is easy, the challenge is knowing when and how hard you must strike. M --__--__-- Message: 8 Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 19:34:39 -0400 From: Buz Grover To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net Subject: [Eskrima] Dog Fights, the Combat Question, & Gunny Hathcock Reply-To: eskrima@martialartsresource.net I was a paperboy for several years growing up. Back in those days things were far less litigious, so a lot of dogs roamed freely and took issue with a ten-year old impinging on their turf. I could come to terms with most pooches--for the most part talking calmly and moving steadily was all it took, but there were always some that took some extra convincing. There were two major techniques: Wrist rocket. This is a fancy slingshot made with surgical tubing. I carried two loads: gravel picked up from local driveways and 1/4 inch steel ball we'd hacksaw out of old wheel bearings. Often times shooting an irregularly shaped piece of gravel over a dog would do the trick; the irregular shape would cause it to make a noise like an angry insect as it spun through the air. Most pooches understand that angry buzzing things are best avoided. If a dog needed more convincing, a piece of gravel to the hindquarters usually did the trick. It took so much work to obtain ball bearings that they were never the first choice for use. However, if a canine customer needed extra convincing a quarter inch ball bearing applied appropriately always did the trick. If they were charging I'd send one straight at their forehead at 10 or 15 feet, usually causing them to tumble to a stop and then light off dazed. If they were quartering back and forth at a distance I'd aim for the shoulder blade; a good hit there would hobble 'em; they'd usually limp off. Sometimes you'd come upon an angry dog too quickly to get the wrist rocket out. In those instances I'd swing my paperbag 360 degrees up over my head and catch the charging pooch broadside. I usually got along pretty good with the big dogs I came upon, but a lot of those nasty little ankle biters ended up flying ass over teakettle into the bushes after such a strike. Monday through Friday I carried a brick in the bottom of my paperbag; Saturday and Sunday papers were big enough no brick was needed. Needless to say, both techniques required practice; wrist rockets in particular take a while to get good with. I hike and do volunteer work in several national parks; packs of feral dogs are a problem parks have you don't often hear about. I still carry wrist rocket 'cause firearms aren't allowed in national parks. Neither are wrist rockets, but you can chuck 'em if the need arises with a lot less remorse than doing the same with a pistol. I still have had to convince the occasional pooch I'd best be left alone. All that reminiscing, however, didn't really speak to the question at hand. Don't have any experience dealing with a pit bull armed only with a knife. Think if one charged I'd try to distract it high, stop it with a foot jab low, drop a knee on it hard and see what was available to hack at. Once saw a military manual that mentioned a canine sentry removal technique: if the dog leapt you were 'sposed to catch a forepaw and send it crashing into whatever was convenient. Might work with a shepherd or a dobbie if your timing was right, but pit bulls have never struck me as leapers. I also read somewhere if a pit bull is latched on to something you can cause it to release by jabbing a knife into its anus. Hope I never have to test that one; if I do I'll probably retire the knife. As for the appropriate use of the word "combat," any standard you come up with is going to be unenforceable so unless you like pushing big rocks up high hills I don't see a percentage in having the argument. I like making English teachers wince and so bend, fold, spindle and mutilate the language whenever I can; there's always going to be some other troublemaker out there looking to warp things to his end. Why reward him by getting excited? For me it comes down to utility; if the word works I'll use it. If some bonehead dilutes the term by talking about combat hemorrhoid cream and tactical Twinkies it's pretty simple to battle with an adjective or two: military combat, street combat, armed combat, quiche-eater combat, combat thumb wrestling, and so on. I think back on other threads concerning appropriate use of specific terms--titles, kali, filipino word origins, etc--and can't think of one that produced a general agreement. If epistemological onanism is your cup of tea, by all means have at it. Me, I got better things to do. Finally, if memory serves Gunny Hathcock had 100,000 piasters put on his head. Think Richard Marcinko claimed in Rouge Warrior that his unit had a price on their heads, as did other riverine SEAL units that got off the beaten path. Regards, Buz Grover --__--__-- _______________________________________________ Eskrima mailing list Eskrima@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/eskrima http://eskrima-fma.net Old digest issues @ ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com/pub/eskrima Copyright 1994-2004: Ray Terry, MartialArtsResource.com, Sudlud.com Standard disclaimers apply. Remember September 11. End of Eskrima Digest