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 » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:03 pm

Everything you say will be used in the investigation.
- state only what are simple facts: (or, I was assaulted by...point)

ONLY THE FREAKIN FACTS. You were just in an event; your are not in that "normal" state.

- your expert speculation and adrenaline-amped perception may be colored, warped, or wrong.

This has been stated in other threads, but you must resist the temptation to help/puke until you've recovered from the trauma -or exhilaration - of the event.

- you can always say more later.

- control mouth, make simple statement if required, state simple facts.


As it has been indicated...many of us just don't have the ability to remain silent under the jolt of the adrenalized post chaotic event and under the guile of professional investigators.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:15 pm

As Uechi Ryu practitioners, or any style, we need to keep remembering that in any confrontation where some degree of force and or identifiable moves we make, as martial arts moves/strikes/blocks, whatever...

even if the moves don't hurt anyone, we can still be charged with assault and battery...so to wit:

Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

These two evidentiary standards are simply two shades of grey. The significance of the legal distinction between the two is enormous, and yet there is surprisingly little objective guidance to distinguish between them.

There are no mathematical formulas that we can apply. This means that in actual practice the subjective nature of the analysis causes courts to reach dissimilar conclusions in similar cases; or similar conclusions in dissimilar cases.

The generic definition that is offered up for probable cause is this:

“If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed, it is sufficient.”

How useful is that? Not very. The courts repeatedly fall back upon utterly useless phrases like “common sense.” Gee, someone couldn’t possibly abuse a phrase like “common sense.”
Suarez Intnl
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:15 pm


Terry Frisk

Start with the general rule: You have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So what is unreasonable? Well, any search is presumed to be unreasonable unless either (a) a detached, neutral magistrate has made a finding that probable cause exists and has issued a warrant, or (b) there is an exception to the warrant requirement. We’ll deal with exceptions later. Terry is, interestingly, not considered an exception to the warrant requirement. Instead, the Court found that a “frisk” is not actually a “search.”

“The police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to ‘frisk’ him for weapons.

If the ‘stop’ and the ‘frisk’ give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal ‘arrest,’ and a full incident ‘search’ of the person.

This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a ‘stop’ and a ‘frisk’ amount to a mere ‘minor inconvenience and petty indignity,’ which can properly be imposed upon the citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer’s suspicion.”
Law Dog[Suarez International]
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:20 pm

In order to justify a Terry frisk, the police must satisfy a two-prong test: (1) there must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is connected to criminal activity, (2) there must be a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Both of these things are a pretty low threshold, but they do require at least some minimal amount of evidence.

There must be a reasonable suspicion to believe that you are armed. This, though, is virtually a given. A Tennessee court accepted a police officer’s testimony that, based on his training and experience, people with suspended driver’s licenses were likely to carry concealed firearms. There is virtually no reason that is so stupid that a judge would not accept it.

We care about weapons. And Terry expressly authorizes the police to frisk us for weapons any time they can point to any crime that we might be engaged in.

The lesson: If you look like you might be engaged in crime, you are subject to being searched. Even if you have an honest explanation for why you are there and what you are doing, a cop can still search you. He can’t call it a “search;” it’s a “frisk,” but it’s the same thing. He does not need a warrant.
Law Dog [Suarez]
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:24 pm

The Bump Frisk is a technique that I believe was born out of the Secret Service. In its most basic form, you maneuver through a crowd and intentionally "bump" people with your hands.

The precise objective is to determine whether they are armed, but you must never admit that. The agent must fastidiously maintain that it was an unintentional contact which revealed to him that the subject was armed.

Hold both hands in front of you, palms forward, with your fingers splayed out to each side, in roughly the same manner that you would catch a basketball.

Approach someone from the rear. Adjust your hands so that you contact as much as possible of the parts of their body where a weapon would likely be concealed.

Stay focused on the waistline and be sure to get the 3-4:00 and 8-9:00 positions. There is no point in overlapping an area with both thumbs, because either thumb alone can identify a weapon.

So on a thin person, you may be able to reach further around to the front. On a large person, you may only get the back and hips. The longer your fingers, the more area you can cover. Reach up with your index fingers to feel for a shoulder holster. Be sure to say, "Excuse me."

Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, and similar groups will plant agents in a crowd with the mission of "bumping" as many people as they can. When you see some dumb schmuck floundering through the crowd muttering, "Excuse me. Pardon me. Sorry about that. Excuse me," you'll now know that he isn't actually a dumb schmuck.
Law Dog
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:27 pm

Terry is a "pat down" not a grab and twist; but try telling that to the cop who wants to impress his boss, so he can get a plainclothes assignment. I think its an argument that can be made in court; but that's only AFTER you've been arrested.
Law Dog
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:35 pm

You know how YOU profile people today? You look at what they are doing that is out of the ordinary. THAT is what catches your attention. Then you look at how they are dressed and how they look in comparison to everyone around them.

Something about the way they look, their behavior and general place in the universe in comparison to others in the area is different.

For you, the private citizen, your actions might be to suspect something is about to happen and either leave, or call someone (or if you are a member of the tribe wait quietly to see if you can enjoy the coming festivities)...

but the seemingly pending event and its actors drew your attention and then called you into action. Your mental notice and any countermeasures were not random at all were they? It is the same for the police who stop somebody for a frisk...oh wait, "stop to talk to a citizen on the street in a consentual manner".

So how do you avoid this happening to you? It is so simple that if you cannot fathom how, I suggest you go back to some sort of school to get your imagination and attention back.

It is the same as the differences between seeking rescue in the wilderness, and conducting escape and evasion. You just do the opposite. If you want to be rescued, you make noise, you get seen, you stand out.

If you want to evade location and capture you stay quiet, you do not get seen, you do not stand out. Simple. And it is not some nebulous skulking gray thing either. It is as simple as being normal, dressing normal, and acting normal.

A normal person doesn't loiter. they have sh*t to do...at home, at work, at school...somewhere. They go to one place, conduct their business, and then leave to the next stop.

Everything ultimately has a purpose. The dudes in the original Terry stop were loitering and acting in a manner that attracted someone's attention. A normal person could have walked into the store, done their business and walked out with an illegal sawed off shotgun under their overcoat and never have attracted any attention.

On clothing, (and if someone brings up Friday Casual and deviates the thread I will ban them), it is also simple.

If you dress like a thug, you will be seen as a thug and treated as one...by the police and everyone else. Yes you have a right to dress like Tupaks of Coors...but there is a price for that and that is the wrong kind of attention.

Dress like a normal human being and nobody will consider you otherwise.


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

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:38 pm

if you look out of place or like you are up to something then you will draw attention to yourself. Essentially if you look like you belong and don't look like you are doing anything out of place then no one pays much attention to you.
Randy Harris
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:45 am

The Romance of Manly Virtue

WHY PEOPLE FIGHT
By: Skip Gochenour

Fighting is distinguished from predatory killing by motive and behavior.

A. Fighting is the product of three motives,

1. Honor

2. Fear

3. Economic self-interest


B. Honor motivated fighting is in response to a threat or attack, usually verbal or situational, on ones image of manhood, that if left unanswered will bring about unbearable shame, as viewed by the offended party.

Honor fighting has at its foundation a willingness to shed blood, yours or the offenders, rather than face shame and disgrace attendant to the unanswered insult.


1. Honor fighting is probably as ancient as social man. It is written about in the most ancient texts.

2. All manner of social behavior patterns have been developed to avoid creating “offense” to another person as a means to reduce the fighting response.

3. These behaviors have some amount of cultural significance that are obscure outside the particular culture.

4. When subjects are approached that may be taken as offensive by the party addressed, it is common to offer apology, followed by an assertion that no offense is meant, before addressing the subject.

5. Even the law recognizes this concept in identifying the concept of “fighting words”.



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

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:46 am

C. Fear motivated fighting is a response to a gambit by another who threatens or offers violence.

1. This is the form of motive on which self-defense fighting is predicated.

2. The fighting response to this motive can, assuming the right conditions are met, complete the requirements of legal justification.

3. Failure to follow accepted rules of etiquette, especially in doing offensive actions including the use of “fighting words” will likely have a negative impact on claims of legal justification, even if self-defense is necessary at the moment.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:48 am

D. Economic self-interest motivated fighting is to preserve, proliferate or further acquire assets of economic well-being.

1. Machiavelli said a man will forgive you for killing his father, but, he will never forgive you for destroying his property.

2. Proper apology may salve an offense to honor and reduce the likelihood of a fight, but threatening economic well-being of another man will not be answered with an apology.

3. The concept of “mine” is the precursor to brutal fighting throughout the history of man.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:49 am

II. Fighting is distinguished from predatory killing in that each party to the encounter is willing to risk his physical well-being in the exchange.

A. Predatory killing does not always imply such willingness.

1. Predatory killing is more usually engaged in when the actor believes he has an advantage that obviates the targets willingness or ability to perform in a way that would endanger the actor.

2. The predatory killer tends to attack those he determines to be of a will that is too timid to fight or too squeamish to fight effectively and/or without sufficient assets to overcome the attack.

3. The predatory killer uses artifice, subterfuge and/or cunning to mask his intention before the initiation of the attack.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:51 am


B. Fighters, to the contrary, usually make plain their intention to fight sufficiently in advance that the other party has some response time, however abbreviated.

1. Unlike predatory events, casual observers are able to identify the respective antagonists and that there is about to be an engagement.

C. Fights generally initiate when one of the parties to the fight concludes, based on interactive interpretation, that the other lacks sufficient deterrence quotient.

1. Deterrence quotient equates to sufficient skill, determination and ruthlessness to carry the fight to the end.

2. Fights that are not concluded with a clear and decisive victory to one of the respective sides, whether on a school yard or a war zone, set the stage for a numbered sequence of further engagements until a decisive outcome is acquired. (WWI & WWII)

3. Intervention by negotiators, whether teachers on a school yard or diplomats in a war zone, merely assure that there will be another engagement.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:53 am


III. The romance of manly virtue is as old as cultured man.

A. The willingness to fight, as derivative to these motives, is reinforced as a manly virtue through a process of romanticization. Examples of virtuously motivated fighting response to attack or threat are the subject of stories, fables, mythology and history.

1. Examples include Knights and “gunfighters”.

2. The search for historical accuracy associated with individual events is important, but marginal to the purpose of the romanticized version.

B. These motives of action are closely associated with issues of “right and wrong”, “good and evil”. One party is seen as answering only to his own conscience, the other is seen as answering to society’s conscience.

1. As with most lesson that use mythology, historical fact is mixed with lessons of virtue in an effort to inculcate proper motive and response in the group that selects these stories as morality lessons.

2. The virtue of these motives and actions are then made part of the reference frames, the imagination, of those in the group. Hence, it is “civilized” to engage in such actions – when properly motivated.

3. We find fighting for these motives acceptable and, under the right conditions, legally justifiable.

4. While these motives and responses long existed and were celebrated in lore, (see Beowulf) the American West in the late 1800’s provided a milieu that allowed these qualities to be explored in a way that has captured the world’s attention.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Re: Good talk on blocks

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:05 am

Malls Of violence

Busy malls keep police bustling, too

Amid increased holiday traffic at Burlington Mall, police must increase their patrols in the parking lot as well as inside. (Pat Greenhouse/Globe Staff)

BURLINGTON - Inside the Burlington Mall, great care has been taken to give shoppers that warm, fuzzy holiday feeling. There are carolers dressed in top hats, Christmas lights dangling overhead, and a giant Santa's village with, of course, the big man himself.

But in the mall parking lot, where Burlington police officers circle in squad cars and stand post at busy intersections, the holiday cheer gets served up with a stiff shot of reality. With the crowds come the criminals, police know.

Shoplifters, pickpockets, and car burglars - this is their time of year, too. And that, combined with the holiday traffic at major malls, spells trouble for many suburban police departments, whose officers will work long hours in the weeks ahead to deal with the holiday crush.


this is the time of the year, in particular, when you need to be extra careful going to malls and the 'persona' you present to the world as you move about.

It helps to have your hand close to some sort of weapon when you walk alone in the parking lot looking for your car.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 55731
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 0 guests