Training with Women

[Chris McKinley]

Oh, I'm not saying that I wouldn't have done it out of vengeance. Vengeance seems perfectly appropriate in that context. Nor am I a mindless slave to hard-wired training reactions. I get to choose my actions, and I would choose to dismantle someone I didn't know who took a surprise shot at a vital target of mine.

[Bhassler]

To each his own. Personally, I find that attitude a bit excessive-- but I guess it just goes to show you should be careful who you nut-kick.

[Chris McKinley]

Uh huh. Frankly, I find an attitude that doesn't acknowledge that a groin strike can be a very serious injury to be both naive and a bit weak. Dunno if that's your take on it personally or not, but there ya go. Bigger picture though is that violence of whatever kind is not fun and games. People can get hurt or killed despite the most harmless of intentions. Besides, unless it's someone you know very well, there is no way to tell what the person's intent is nor how far they intend to carry the hostilities. If someone you don't know opens with a shot to a vital target, you can't afford to gamble/assume that somehow that's all there is to it. Further, you may have mere seconds to respond in such a way as to protect yourself before any injury you might have sustained renders you unable to do so.

Karmically, so to speak, anybody cruel enough to kick you in the jimmy when they're not defending themselves deserves whatever they get anyway.

[Bhassler]

I think a lot of it boils down to context. If you're a LEO and someone kicks at your jimmy, you have the right and the need to neutralize that person immediately by whatever means necessary. If you're at a cardio kickboxing class in a $100/mo health club and a 22 year-old girl wearing a Lulu Lemon workout suit in a cardio kickboxing class kicks at your jimmy and you put her in the hospital, you're headed for a civil suit and some jail time. Based on one person's background that person has a certain mindset and responses that are appropriate to their experience of the world, as do I. So in their world I might be seen as naive, and in my world they might be seen as psychotic. I neither case does it work for one person to attempt to force their world view on an environment that is significantly different from the environment in which that world view was formed.

Anyhow, I think we're getting pretty OTT- if we want to continue we should probably start a new thread...

[JusticeZero]

I dunno; it's really a case of how lenient you feel like being against someone who is trying to injure you out of pure malice. There's really no difference between some cute woman popping you between the legs and a scruffy guy on the street corner taking a swing at your jaw, in the end. In both cases someone is trying to hurt you for no good reason.

[Bhassler]

There's a difference between hurt and injure and between malice and stupidity.

[RobP2]

Malice and stupidity can still both result in injury or death though. I wonder how it would be judged if you kicked her in the lulu?

[Chris McKinley]

RE: "I neither case does it work for one person to attempt to force their world view on an environment that is significantly different from the environment in which that world view was formed.". Screw forcing your world view on an environment; what doesn't work is for someone to actually use force on another person unprovoked....not in sociopolitically metaphorical way having to do with world views, but in a real physical force kind of way where real injury is possible.

And no, if Lulu lemon chick attacks me with a strike to a vital target unprovoked, she goes down and I'll make sure she gets painted as the initiator of the assault. That will blow any civil suit out of the water anyway. Bottom line, when we as law-abiding citizens fear the courts to the point where we begin to let physical violence go unanswered, it's over. It's only a matter of a long, slow slide into chaos at that point. I'm not willing to lay down my freedoms so meekly as that.

[Bhassler]

I'm sorry Chris, I think we're just going to have to file for divorce due to irreconcileable differences.

I understand what you're saying from an intellectual standpoint, and I simply disagree. We as people are more than just our physical selves, which I know you understand since so much of the training you advocate deals with the mental and emotional processes of functioning during an attack. Physical violence is given greater protection in our society because it is visible and measurable, but that doesn't mean that an emotional assault is any less damaging than a physical one.

To go back to the original comment, if the woman in question felt that the attention of the guy who got nailed was inappropriate and unwanted, she has the right to terminate that encounter. Choosing to do so by kicking him in the nuts is obviously an inappropriate and excessive method of doing so. However, if he had then responded by hospitalizing her, that would also be inappropriate and excessive. That's not law-abiding, that's gang-land retaliation shit. Saying you're protecting your freedoms doesn't ring true to me. The purpose of laws (and civilized society in general) is so that all members of that society can be free, not just those who are able to enforce their particular view of what freedom is. If you value the freedoms your civilization provides, then the way to protect those freedoms is to use the methods prescribed by the law, rather than taking the law into your own hands.

I don't expect you to agree with me, as I know from experience that your opinions are well reasoned and well informed, but I also believe there is another way of looking at it that is just as valid.

[JusticeZero]

It is also self defence, for as long as one can indicate that there was still a threat of the attack continuing. One can't just go walking around randomly assaulting people, then claim that they can't react because they only kicked/punched/threw them once. If you can't respond to an attack even AFTER the other person threw the first punch, then when/how are you supposed to act?

[gretel]

I think Lulu should be taken down but not hospitalized. She may have been clueless about how serious such a kick can be or she may have been uncoordinated and not really intending to strike so hard. There should be consequences, and isn't it up to the teacher to handle situations like this?

gretel

[JusticeZero]

The teacher? I don't do this to become a figure of authority, judge, jury, and jailer in one. If someone hasn't learned not to hurt strangers by the age that they can pay for my classes, I don't know why I would have better luck.

[Bhassler]

It is also self defence, for as long as one can indicate that there was still a threat of the attack continuing. One can't just go walking around randomly assaulting people, then claim that they can't react because they only kicked/punched/threw them once. If you can't respond to an attack even AFTER the other person threw the first punch, then when/how are you supposed to act?

In Colorado you would have to present a pretty viable argument that the assault was in fact continuing, and that injuring your attacker was the only viable option for you. So if it was in a martial art class you would first have to demonstrate that it was beyond the scope of normal hazards associated with the training (not hard to do in this case) and also that you had good reason to believe that it was a serious assault (maybe, maybe not in this case) and that other options (calling for help, running away) were not viable (highly doubtful in this case). Furthermore, if you have any legitimate chops as a martial artist (competitions, MA instructor, LEO or mililtary experience), you yourself might be considered as a weapon and would be expected to show some judgement and/or restraint as to the appropriate level of force.

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

Like you said, we just disagree. That's cool because, in stating your views, you haven't had to resort to direct personal attack nor an indirect personal attack by insisting that anyone who doesn't hold/adopt your views be demonized. You also haven't, while in the process of stating your views, made an assault on anyone else's freedoms. That last bit is becoming more and more rare on this forum, and perhaps in society at large. Thank you very much for crafting your words and arguments in a very reasonable and civil manner.

RE: "Physical violence is given greater protection in our society because it is visible and measurable, but that doesn't mean that an emotional assault is any less damaging than a physical one.". While that may be true, it's a complete red herring to the issue we are discussing. The relative damage of emotional abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is acceptable to commit physical violence, unprovoked, on another person, especially when a vital target is chosen for attack.

RE: "...if the woman in question felt that the attention of the guy who got nailed was inappropriate and unwanted, she has the right to terminate that encounter. Choosing to do so by kicking him in the nuts is obviously an inappropriate and excessive method of doing so. However, if he had then responded by hospitalizing her, that would also be inappropriate and excessive.". No, in fact, it's entirely within the law if he felt he was in danger of death or serious injury. Who assaults him is only relevant with regard to the age of the assailant as to whether the assailant is a minor or not.

RE: "Saying you're protecting your freedoms doesn't ring true to me.". I have the right to protect myself from physical attack, period. That right is not granted nor rescinded by any government. I also have the freedom to assert that right when relevant. That freedom comes from a government that derives from the natural will of the governed to protect their natural rights. Any government which refuses me the right to defend myself from physical attack is itself complicit in that attack, and becomes as much my enemy as the assailant. And God have mercy on both of them, for I may not.

RE: "The purpose of laws (and civilized society in general) is so that all members of that society can be free, not just those who are able to enforce their particular view of what freedom is.". Enforcement comes through the use or threat of physical force....if another person has already taken it upon him/herself to employ force on me when I am minding my own business, I both have the legal/moral/ethical right and will defend myself. It is complete bullshit to suggest that, in defending myself from physical attack, I (the victim of the assault) am somehow acting in such a way as to enforce my view of what freedom is on someone else. I am defending myself from their pre-emptive attack, period. If they don't like it, too goddamned bad...they shouldn't have attacked me then.

RE: "If you value the freedoms your civilization provides, then the way to protect those freedoms is to use the methods prescribed by the law, rather than taking the law into your own hands.". There are two fallacies contained in that statement:

1) That defending myself from physical assault is against the law. It is entirely within my legal right to use that force which is necessary to defend myself from physical assault. If my life is in danger, I may even use deadly force as necessary. If your state does not follow that precept, it is unlawfully and un-Constitutionally abridging your freedoms and natural rights.

2) That the police or equivalent agent of the government has the full, sole and lawful right and responsibility of protecting me. Such is not the case. The federal government has no legal responsibility to protect me as an individual person. The state may take such right onto itself but by convention, that rubric usually falls to municipal authorities. Even then, their only responsibility is to enforce the law, not provide contingent protection. That responsibility still falls to the individual. If a police officer is present, he/she is obligated to protect me as a part of enforcing the law prohibiting physical assault. That same officer has no burden of responsibility to provide such protection if he/she is not present. In such case, that responsibility falls solely on me.

RE: "I don't expect you to agree with me, as I know from experience that your opinions are well reasoned and well informed, but I also believe there is another way of looking at it that is just as valid.". Thank you. Like we have both stated, we may just very simply disagree. No big deal. What is interesting is to see the reasoning behind the arguments asserted. Even if the argument is ultimately rejected, the reasoning may still provide much food for thought.


gretel,

RE: "There should be consequences, and isn't it up to the teacher to handle situations like this?". The teacher??? Is that a serious question or a bit of dry humor that just completely went over my head? Firstly, I'm not a minor, so I don't need an adult guardian to provide protection for me. Secondly, regardless of where I am, I retain the right to defend myself from physical assault, issues of social hierarchy or politeness be damned. No other human being has jurisdiction over my right to self-defense, no matter their social, political or legal station in society. Therefore, I do not choose to abdicate my right to some martial arts teacher....no thanks.

[gretel]

i'm confused. there is an violent incident way beyond ordinary sparring in the class and the teacher would just stand by with a bemused look on his/her face?

gretel