Good talk on blocks

Sensei Canna offers insight into the real world of self defense!

Moderator: Van Canna

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:59 am

Law 10: Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky
You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease.
You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster.
The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

Humans are extremely susceptible to the moods, emotions, and even the ways of thinking of those with whom they spend their time.

How can you protect yourself against such insiduous viruses?

The answer lies in judging people on the effects they have on the world and not on the reasons they give for their problems.

Infectors can be recognized by the misfortune they draw on themselves, their turbulent past, their long line of broken relationships, their unstable careers, and the very force of their character, which sweeps you up and makes you lose your reason.


Be forewarned by these signs of an infector; learn to see the discontent in their eye. Most important of all, do not take pity. Do not enmesh yourself in trying to help.
The infector will remain unchanged, but you will be unhinged.


Never associate with those who share your defects – they will reinforce everything that holds you back. Only create associations with positive affinities.

Make this a rule of life and you will benefit more than from all the therapy in the world.


My long time readers will remember a few of such 'infectors' who had made themselves a 'home' here on my forum...and all the misery and acrimony that they brought along with them. Fortunately, they are all gone now as sooner or later they showed their true colors and they were either cannon balled into cyber space or dissolved by their own inner poisons.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:03 pm

SUV Attack

This will really sober up all who think can stop any attacker with the karate stuff we practice.

By a road rager in Miami...

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 67569.html

This should illustrate the point I keep on making about it's all about the type of adversary you are likely to face that determines if any of your skills/techniques/conditioning/etc., you think are so 'lethal' will have any chance at working.

The attack you see should remind you of a charging bull out to kill the bullfighter...

You see here a Matador killed by a charging bull...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BGonopGo3k

The type of attack by that madman, if you are caught outside the SUV...would kill you.

Not a time for the block and counter drills if you want to make it alive...

That is a time to 'fix bayonets' and keep on working on getting off line so you can flank such an attack if there is any chance at dealing with it...which even with a .45 pistol in your hand is questionable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BGonopGo3k
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:34 am

The 'all Macho' karate people don't want to watch stuff like this and don't want to hear about offline drills...because the have been dreaming for such a long time...
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 67569.html

it is like Rory when he writes
'The dream is damned and dreamer too if dreaming's all that dreamers do.'


If you want someone stop from injuring you and he started first, you have to move with maximum efficiency.
You have to make each action serve all your goals : protect yourself, damage the threat_ better your position_ worsen his_Each move...everytime.
Rory

There are many, many people who disdain off line drills...the first problem is they don't understand violence...the second, and a real one...they are slugs on their feet...they can't move their body mass quick enough and this is what will kill them sanchin or no sanchin.

The clips I posted about the madman charging and punching the SUV and the one where the bullfighter gets killed in the ring...is going to stay in your psyche for a long time as you get back on the floor thinking your Uechi has made you invincible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BGonopGo3k
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:55 am

You Can't Beat an (Armed) Woman
By Paxton Quigley & Dave Kopel

Should Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman have carried a gun? There's no guarantee that a handgun would have stopped their knife-wielding attacker.

But a pistol in the hands of a trained woman may sometimes offer the only realistic way for a relatively small woman to stop a murderous assault by a man who may outweigh her by a hundred pounds or more.

Handgun Control, Inc., however, believes that the Simpson case is proof of the need for more gun control. Since Mrs. Simpson and Mr. Goldman were murdered with a knife, the gun control lesson is not immediately apparent.

But HCI argues that since domestic violence is a major public concern right now, Congress should attach to the pending crime bill a law to bar anyone who is the subject of Restraining Order from ever owning a gun.

Restraining Orders, though, are not criminal convictions. A Restraining Order involves no proof of guilt; accordingly, indigent persons have no right to have an attorney appointed in Restraining Order hearings.

A Restraining Order does not require any finding that violence has occurred in the past.

Rather, a Restraining Order may be issued on the basis that violence might occur in the future.

Quite often, a judge in a divorce case will find that the ex-husband and ex-wife now loathe each other.

With the consent of both parties, the judge will enter a restraining order for each ex-spouse to stay away from the other.

In many cases, these orders stay in effect forever.

Under current law, a judge who believes that a person in a domestic dispute might misuse a firearm has the authority to order the person to surrender his guns, and not acquire any more.

The gun prohibitionists, however, want to treat a Restraining Order as the equivalent of a violent felony conviction, making the order a lifetime bar to the possession of any firearm--even when a judge has found no reason to put a permanent gun ban in the Restraining Order.

In the short run, turning Restraining Orders into gun confiscation orders will harm domestic violence enforcement.

While many men today voluntarily do not contest proposed Restraining Orders, they would use every legal resource to fight a proposed order if the order meant not only staying away from someone they don't like anyway, but also surrendering their guns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The resultant legal delays would further clog an already overburdened judicial system.

Second, there really are some men who love their guns more than their ex-wives. After the guns are confiscated, some of these men may become so angry that they seek out and beat up their former spouses. LOL

Law enforcement will also be hampered by an increasing number of false domestic violence claims. Just as false claims of child abuse are now routine in custody battles, false claims of domestic violence will be used against gun collectors by vindictive ex-spouses.

In the long run, more women will be killed. Even after men have been convicted of domestic violence, many women continue to live with them, as Nicole Simpson did after O.J. Simpson's misdemeanor conviction.

If the gun prohibition lobby succeeds in taking guns out of such homes, the result will benefit abusive males. Quite often, abused women end up using their abuser's gun to shoot him in lawful self-defense.

Tulane University sociologist James D. Wright explains that in domestic violence shootings, "the more common pattern is for wives to shoot their husbands.

Proportionately, men kill their women by other means, more brutal means, more degrading means.

To deny the [abused] woman the right to own the firearm is in some sense to guarantee in perpetuity to her husband the right to beat her at will."

When an abused wife grabs her husband's revolver from the bedside table, and, as he is about to inflict another beating that will send her to the hospital, shoots him dead, the gun prohibition lobby calls it "tragic domestic homicide" that was "caused" by a gun.

A more accurate description would be legitimate self-defense against a violent predator.

In the last 15 years, the number of women choosing to own guns for self-defense has surged. Men and women are now equally likely to own firearms for protection. Perhaps that is one reason why the domestic homicide rate in the last 15 years has fallen by one-third, from 1.7 per 100,000 population to 1.1.

The gun prohibition lobbies advise crime victims to give the criminals what they want, and to rely on the police for protection, or to get a dog.

Reliance on such advice is one of the reasons that Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman are dead. (Nicole Simpson's big Akita did nothing except lead a neighbor to her dead body.)

California law already admits that the police cannot protect every domestic violence victim.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code specifies that any person who "reasonably believes" that he or she is "in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court" may carry a handgun for protection--without need to obtain a special permit from the government.

While the gun prohibition lobbies insist the women should trust the government to protect them, every day more and more women are taking responsibility for protecting themselves.

Without delay, every state in the nation should modify its handgun carry laws so that, in a world where the government fails to protect victims, the victims can choose to legally carry their own means of self-protection.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:59 am

Law 12: Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim
One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people.

Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.

With a well-timed gesture of honesty or generosity, you will have the most brutal and cynical beast in the kingdom eating out of your hand.

Selective honesty is best employed on your first encounter with someone. We are all creatures of habit, and our first impressions last a long time. If someone believes you are honest at the start of your relationship it takes a lot to convince them otherwise.

Few people can resist a gift, even from the most hardened enemy, which is why it is often the perfect way to disarm people.

A gift brings out the child in us, instantly lowering our defenses. (Cialdini, Influence Hare Krishna example)

“When you are about to take, you should give.”
– Han-fei-tzu, Chinese philosopher
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:25 pm

If you want someone stop from injuring you and he started first, you have to move with maximum efficiency.
You have to make each action serve all your goals : protect yourself, damage the threat_ better your position_ worsen his_Each move...everytime.
Rory

With this Rory makes you look at the way you train and the assumptions that snake unto you because of your training.

Take a look again at the video clips I have posted, in particular the 'kamikaze' road rager throwing himself at the front of the SUV...flexing his muscles...punching the grille of the SUV...and then picking up a piece of the broken grill, like in a make believe gun...firing at the SUV.

What you need to understand is that in addition to that mad man size and weight and malicious intent...

the fact he is under an extreme adrenalized state will make him just about immune to any strikes of doom you think you can throw at him, because he won't feel them, and there won't be any Uechi phone booth style stoppage, the one you keep dreaming about.

It's like the cases we know where police has fired two shots center mass [heart shots] at an enraged attacker moving in with a knife, and continue to advance to kill you before he dies.

This is where the 'Mozambique' drill came into being and what Joey Pep, Uechi-Ka and Everett police officer...had to use on the attacker with a knife...

So get the closing in with such an opponent out of your mind, and practice in all your training what Rory recommends
If you want someone stop from injuring you and he started first, you have to move with maximum efficiency.
You have to make each action serve all your goals : protect yourself, damage the threat_ better your position_ worsen his_ Each move...everytime.


By 'better your position' it is meant for you to get off the X and flank.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:37 pm

Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:51 pm

Another way to get some one to capitulate is to cause what is known as an “adrenal dump”. By behaving in a manner that causes the onlooker’s brain to flush the body with adrenaline, you can create the feeling of fear, which in turn causes them to capitulate. This can be done by sudden and extreme aggression.

A way to enhance this is to push the opponent out of fighting range, it is thought that the creation of distance causes the body to go from “fight” to “flight” as they have suddenly been given a way out.

Certainly when trying to intervene in a fight a very loud and aggressive “OI!!” has been known to stop a fight, this is certainly the case for some prisoners who end up fighting in order to “keep face”, but desperately want someone else to end the fight for them.

It is important to remember, however, that this increase in aggression can refocus the opponent towards you and trigger an attack; after all they are already geared for action and just require the appropriate trigger.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:10 pm

When you think what you 'study' on the dojo floor is going to keep you safe outside the door. Or you are just full of it...

CCW-SAFE_

THE SHOOTING OF JOE MCKNIGHT

“A Cautionary Tale to All Drivers”

Part 5: Post-Incident Actions


“He cut me off and got out on me,” 56 year old Ronald Gasser told investigators. “He got out of his car and put his hand in my vehicle, and I shot him.”

According to the defendant, that was the deadly resolution of a five-mile “tit-for-tat mutual road rage” incident that ended with Joe McKnight dying on the road at an intersection in a suburb of New Orleans in December 1, 2016.

Gasser learned only after the shooting that the man he killed was a former New York Jets running back.

Immediately after the shooting, Gasser exited his vehicle, still carrying his .40 caliber Smith & Wesson.

Wendell Sam witnessed the shooting and saw McKnight laying between cars, still moving.

When Sam and another witness started rendering aid to McKnight, Gasser put his sidearm down, but made no effort to call 911 or to help.

Prosecutors raised the issue of Gasser’s lack of action at trial; he seemed more concerned with justifying his actions than he did with the fate of the man he shot.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:16 pm

“You may feel the last thing you want to do is help someone who just tried to kill you,” says Don West, national trial counsel for CCW Safe and veteran criminal defense attorney, “but the fact that Gasser didn’t render aid became a negative aspect in the case.”

At trial, the prosecutors asked the jury to decide if the shooter felt genuine fear when he pulled the trigger or whether he felt malice.

If Gasser had done more than stand around and make excuses for his actions while others tried to save McKnight’s life, it would have sent a powerful message to the jury that malice wasn’t his motivation.


Is this ever brought up in a typical workout?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:21 pm

Gasser remained at the scene for hours after the shooting, and he answered every question investigators had.

At trial, defense attorney Matt Goetz asked the jury to consider Gasser’s willing cooperation as evidence his client felt justified in acting in self-defense.

In truth, however, Goetz knew that giving detailed, recorded statements to investigators (without the counsel of a lawyer) was the biggest mistake Gasser made in the hours following the shooting.

While Goetz worked hard before trial to have the statements disqualified from evidence, one of the first things prosecutors did during trial is to play all eight hours of Gasser’s uncounseled recorded testimony.


This is the worst possible situation...you may think now that you will shut up and ask for a lawyer...but you will do the opposite if and when it happens...and as I have seen in my investigations, much of what you will say, you won't even remember you said it.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:22 pm

Don West encourages being cooperative with authorities after a self-defense shooting, but he says you should never give detailed statements without the advice of a lawyer.

After the trauma of being involved in a shooting, he says, it’s impossible for someone to get all the details right -- even if they are trying to be truthful.

Any discrepancy between the shooter’s statements and the physical evidence will be used to “contradict or impeach” the defendant.


This applies to a shooting as well as a defense with a less than lethal weapon /improvised weapon and empty hands.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:26 pm

That’s exactly what happened in the Gasser case. Gasser told investigators that McKnight “lunged” at him through the open window of his car, and that’s when he fired his pistol.

The problem for Gasser is that forensic evidence seemed to tell a different story.

A forensic pathologist testified that the bullet wound in McKnight’s shoulder suggested that he was backing up, not lunging.

Furthermore, there was a lack of stippling from the gun’s discharge found on McKnight’s clothes or body.

It meant that McKnight was more than two and a half feet away from the muzzle of the pistol when Gasser fired.

This evidence might not have been particularly devastating on it own, but because it directly contradicted Gasser’s statements, it made him seem like a liar.

“He (McKnight) wasn’t as close as Mr. Gasser says he was,” the prosecutor told the jury.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:27 pm

Don West says that, with his detailed statements, Gasser “gave the prosecutors something to disprove,” and it damaged Gasser’s credibility with the jury.

The lesson for the concealed carrier is that what you do and don’t do after a self-defense shooting can have a profound impact on a potential prosecution.

You should cooperate with authorities -- even to the point of trying to save the life of the person you shot, if it’s safe to do so --

but you should never give detailed statements to law enforcement without the counsel of an attorney.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:27 am

Don Rearic
The majority of TMA folks are against guns, knives, impact weapons and implements...weapons! That's the word! "Majority" can be 51%, so I stick by that...

They think the Mighty Dragon Punch is going to save them.


True enough...the 'I come to you with my empty hands' Bull*#####

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/ ... 67569.html

Let's see...here all is needed is a shoken, right? :lol:
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55338
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron