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 Nov 14, 2019 10:15 pm

This will sink you deep

d. Excessive force

1) You may not use force greater than that offered by the antagonist.

2) The level and amount of force may not exceed that which is required to reduce the threat to an acceptable level.

3) Any blow delivered that is outside the requirements of “necessity” is not justified.


NOTE: Training techniques, when reviewed under the “necessity” standard, will examine the necessity of each blow delivered.


Understand this concept and incorporate it in your dojo training. A real can of worms...imagine to be a slave mentally to this 'necessity' standard when under extreme stress in fear of being killed in a fight/assault.
Van
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:17 pm

Mindset

1. Mindset as used in this circumstance refers to the state of mind of the Practitioner as he struck the blow.

2. Mens Rea.

a. Guilty mind.

b. The jury will be instructed of a legal construct that permits them to infer intent when a deadly weapon is employed against a vital part of the body.

c. The intent in justification is to interrupt the violent actions of another.

d. Unintentional injury or death resulting from the use of a deadly weapon and is grossly reckless or negligent conduct that likely rises to a criminal level.

1) Reckless and negligent conduct is that which deviates from a standard of care a person in like or similar circumstance would be expected to employ.

2) Shootings that result from a violation of the 4 Rules would occasion this form of criminal prosecution.

3) R&N differs from other states of mind that must be established through the evidence.

4) Regarding R&N, the state of mind is irrelevant. The issue is the standard of care exercised did not those of a R&P man in the same or similar circumstance.



We should all understand what this is all about if teaching or implying the teaching of self defense.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:20 pm


3 conditions reviewed to determine R&N act.

1) Potential to reasonably foresee harm that might result from your actions.

2) The probability that harm could occur

3) The burden the actor would have to bear if he did not take the action.

4) The higher the potential for an unintended harm to come from an action, the higher the certainty of that harm to the actor must be to justify his actions.

f. Reckless behavior.

1) Generally, reckless behavior requires a higher showing of disregard in the conduct of the actor.

2) Requires a showing the actor showed a disregard for the apparent danger occasioned by his actions.

3. Motive as part of mens rea.

a. Malice is a part of murder.

b. Malice has a specific legal definition.

c. Recklessness, hardness of heart, cruelty, a mind regardless of social duty.

d. The actor’s actions have a substantial and unjustifiable risk of causing harm.

4. Necessity as motive.

a. Gives rise to the concept of retreat, which is actually a tactic recognized as disengagement.

b. Each blow delivered must be, in and of itself, necessary

c. The use of force must be necessary to be justified.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:21 pm


NOTE: Necessity is the product of a two pronged test, subjective and objective.

The Practitioner must believe it is necessary to use force in the present circumstance. He must show that his subjective interpretation is derived from objective facts.

Inversely, the Practitioner who has objective facts from which to interpret a real threat, but does not subjectively believe force is needed can not reach the necessity standard. The Practitioner can not rely on a checklist to justify the use of force.

That is the fallacy of the AOJ model.

5. Proportionality as evidence of motive.

a. . Proportionality is that force which is equal to that force offered and/or just enough additional force to reduce the threat to an acceptable level.

1) Proportionality is that force which is equal to that force offered and/or just enough additional force to reduce the threat to an acceptable level.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:25 pm

NOTE: OC sprays can be used as part of the disengage, escape and evade strategy.

Even if the spray is not used directly on the assailant, it can be used to contaminate the path as the assailant gives pursuit.



such as if you run between the narrow space of parked cars, then spray the area you just emerged from, so the attacker chasing you runs right into the 'fogged' area.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:27 pm

Provocation as motive.

a. Any action a Practitioner engages in that can be interpreted as provocative will be reviewed for its role in creating the need for use of force.

10. Mutual combat as evidence of motive.

a. Failing to take any opportunity to avoid or disengage an antagonist will be reviewed for the role those failures played in the need to use force.


So the 'preclusion' factor is the most critical to implement regardless of ego.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:29 pm

A. AOJ

1. AOJ is the traditional model used by those who must defend themselves while completing their sworn duty obligation to confront VCA.

2. AOJ identifies the salient features of behavior that can be indicative of a lethal threat.

3. Ability refers to the presence of a dangerous weapon.

a. Any implement that is employed in a way to create a danger of death or serious bodily injury.

1) Can be anything from fists and feet to a firearm.

2) Some implements are identified in statute as deadly weapons. Eg. Dirks and blackjacks.

3) Any item that is a force multiplier.

4) Disparity of size, weight, numbers of assailants, training, able-bodied.

4. Opportunity refers to the effective striking distance of the weapons system employed by the VCA.

a. Effective distance can be mediated by obstacles and the VCA being outside the effective distance for his weapons system.

b. Avoidance can be accomplished by maintaining a distance from the VCA that is outside the effect of his weapons system.

c. Obstacles can be used to avoid and disengage from a VCA.

d. The failure to use the options of distance and obstacles can be used to overcome a Practitioners claim of necessity.

[teach environmental analysis in your classes]

5. Jeopardy refers to the actions of the VCA that leads to the reasonable conclusion that force is necessary to interrupt an action that can realistically cause death or serious bodily injury.

Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:30 pm

ADEE

1. A model more appropriate to the non-duty sworn Practitioner who is compelled through necessity to confront a VCA involves avoidance, disengagement escape and evade.

2. This model is useful as a tactical strategy and as a framework through which to describe the objective circumstance that lead to the subjective conclusion that the use of force was necessary.

NOTE: While it is common to regard avoidance as meaning staying away from places where stupid people congregate to do stupid things, it is important to realize that such people can come to visit you in your home.

It is unwise to allow into your home people who bring actively operant baggage through your front door.

Giving shelter in your home to someone who is hiding from an abusive spouse is a very bad idea. Direct them to a service that is in the business of providing such services.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:32 pm

After reading this it is plain to see how most of us traditional martial artists are grossly deficient in the understanding and deployment of our 'martial tools' _

Feel challenged and start learning the fine components parts of the tools of violence.

Make no mistake...even you karate gi will be sen as a tool of violence in the eyes of the law even if you don't know how to tie your belt.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:33 pm

Adee=

Avoidance, disengagement escape and evade.

Think of VCA as 'the bad guy'

VCA=violent criminal actor
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:13 am

There is something else here that should be mentioned so we can all learn from.

GEM sensei wrote
In one instance, late on a Saturday evening when I was on the door and we were closing up for the night, the staff and I were enjoying a "last round" with the band upstairs, when we heard a loud crashing sound outside the building-as though someone had hit the building with their car.

We all ran downstairs and discovered a very large and muscular individual placing our marquee that was attached to our building, into the back of a large vehicle filled with other thugs.

Without thinking I ran to the car and punched the individual square in the nose as hard as I could. His nose, which appeared to have been broken many times before, spurted blood all over and he dropped to the ground suddenly.


It could be any of us here in a similar situation of catching someone either destroying or stealing our property.

With a basic understanding of the precepts of Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion (or AOJP), and additional research on your part, you can begin to judge most situations accurately.

If what's happening does not denote or imply serious “jeopardy.” I.E., serious, imminent physical harm...then there is not legal justification for the use of force.

You do that, and you are open to a criminal charge of assault and battery...plus a civil suit for any damages to the person you assaulted.

And when you get sued and go to your liability Insurance company for defense...you will be turned down as to coverage because the policy excludes intentional acts unless committed in defense of a person. You may defend your own safety with the use of force, but not your stuff.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:20 am

Wauke block fails ...

gary6dan »

Having worked with many Dan ranks over the years, it is frequently noticed that when drills are pushed to a high level of practice the wauke blocks reliability is truly tested.

For many have a false sense of confidence that this "circular block" by itself with work against incoming straight punches. However, when working with many talented dan ranks, it often falls short under real pressure.

While having pre-arranged drills serves a worthy purpose, the co-operative mind set, often lacks true realism in many when practicing. Distancing and timing, when utilized, may appear to be work well, however, when really attacked with intent to hit, explosive driving power is most difficult to "circle " block without the use of , palm heal (primary) and/or repositioning off center line attack.

In working even basic drills as #1 of dan kumite, or other, even the basic first attack will often land on center mass when one explodes with speed, power and intent.

Not so, some may feel ? I would tend to differ as there are many who do not display true "intent" to hit ! This does make a huge difference on the receiving end. Appreciating the need for safety in the dojo, I believe that many do not step up the realism of the attack, therefore testing the capability of the wauke against a truly threatening punch is really executed.

The same is often displayed in the front kick and the arm block. Where there is no real "intent" to hit, there is no real need to block. Therefore. many drills render unrealistic and useless results.

Many advanced dan ranks that I have been privileged to work with over the years understand this well and will hit you with intent if not blocked. I would encourage many to bring their training up to the maximum potential, so as to test their true ability to both land their attacks and also to defend against "real attacks".

Safety, is always a concern and "realistic" training often can escalate to where someone could potentially get hurt. Possibly, this is why many shy away from. Yet, under good supervision and instruction this should not happen.

Please know that this is a "general" statement from observation. No one, instructor or dojo is being referred to.

The bottom line is, "How you train is how you will react" in a real situation. Putting aside the variables...

Respectfully,

Gary S.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:23 am

mhosea »
Not just advanced dan ranks. I will generally make firm contact if you don't block (although maybe you were describing something a good deal more painful), and I myself expect to get hit if I don't block. Some of the guys I work with seem happy enough to oblige. :)

I first learned this principle of yakusoku kumite from Shoshin Nagamine's writings on the subject. Naturally there is an adjustment for the capabilities/desires of each opponent, since what one desires for the other is growth.

As for the use of wa-uke, it is not the only attack which is sold to beginners as a mere block for a punch. You can see Bill Hayes explaining a more credible use the common shuto "blocking" action from Shorin Ryu:

Yet, I speak from experience when I note that, as with the wa-uke in Uechi Ryu, Shorin Ryu students spend years blocking punches with shutos. Why do we teach this way?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:30 am

Kuma-de »

Uke does not mean to block; uke means to 'receive' or to receive the tsuki's technique. To do so effectively you must react quickly and not allow the power of the strike to escalate.

As Van says above, you must invade the individuals space and beat them to the execution of their technique....like throwing a net over them.

If done properly, in conjunction with foot techniques from the stance which sets up throws and take downs, you can turn your blocks into some very dynamic actions.

The shuto uke is a kata technique that hides the application of the forearm as the attacking/blocking weapon (see Toshiro Oshiro's "Uchinadi" to name one video available that explains this). The hand being a very weak blocking weapon is used to grasp/grapple after the block.

Goju's mawashi uke is extremely similar (not the same) as the wa uke. The timing is a bit different. However,the true application is not evading tsuki's strike but rather closing in on the opponent.

Here is a good example of omote bunkai to Seipai kata. Please note the distance with tsuki:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmExIWEglSo

Jim Prouty
New England Budo Center
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby paulg » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:25 pm

So some people may not like this 'reasonable force' standard, but it is the law and we'd better accept it. We need to stop preaching the practice of blind follow-up with multiple blows to fatal targets (throat, eyes, etc) and we have to be very careful about encouraging the 'first strike' approach (KobraKai: Strike First, strike hard, mercy is for the weak!) I am with Funakoshi on this... no first strike in karate.
paulg
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:26 am

PreviousNext

Return to Van Canna's Self Defense Realities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests