Here is a new one for discussion: We have an exceptionally gifted student who does not want to be tested for rank. His reasoning? He fears that someday he might need to defend himself and in doing so seriously injure someone. He believes that in a trial, any official martial arts rank would be a detriment to him. He wants to learn, but he does not want the recognition of a test and rank.
Any thoughts on this out there?
Rich C. in Richmond
Fear of Rank
Moderator: Available
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Fear of Rank
Interesting Rich, but I doubt the ruse would work. A good prosecutor (or lawyer in a civil trial) would determine how long the person studied and skill acquired. If that didn't work, the person's teacher would probably be called to testify and be forced to disclose the reasons for the person not being qualified for rank or for not accepting rank. A no win situation for the student. The fact that he injured his opponent (assailant)means that he has the skill. The fact that he elected to misrepresent his ability to escape liability is even more damaging to his case.
Of all the options we have as martial artist to avoid risk, my feeling is that your student has elected one that cannot help him. Better to be fully aware of the law regarding self defense and carry the telephone number of a good lawyer.
------------------
GEM
Of all the options we have as martial artist to avoid risk, my feeling is that your student has elected one that cannot help him. Better to be fully aware of the law regarding self defense and carry the telephone number of a good lawyer.
------------------
GEM
-
Raffi Derderian
- Posts: 635
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Johnston, RI
- Contact:
Fear of Rank
Rich,
Print out that last message from Sensei and show it to your student. It hits the nail on the head. For what the student is saying his reason is anyway.
In JKD, ranking is optional. I've got students who have been with me for 6 years that have never taken a rank test. Sometimes it is just not something people are interested in. Sometimes, however, the reasons are fear. I have no idea why, but testing really intimidates people.
Raf
Print out that last message from Sensei and show it to your student. It hits the nail on the head. For what the student is saying his reason is anyway.
In JKD, ranking is optional. I've got students who have been with me for 6 years that have never taken a rank test. Sometimes it is just not something people are interested in. Sometimes, however, the reasons are fear. I have no idea why, but testing really intimidates people.
Raf
-
Gary Santaniello
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Thu May 06, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph Ma USA
Fear of Rank
Rich,
Although Sensei Mattson makes a very good point, i can appreciate the students feelings and/or fear.
For i hold rank of Godan, instructor, student/practicioner of Uech-Ryu and i often fear the "consequences" of engagement of a confrontation. How many times i have avoided situations and walked away when i had other thoughts.
What would they do to me in a court even with justified "self defence" ? How much would the legal fees be ? All providing of course that my years of training pay off for me.
I have known guys with guns who stopped carrying them for fear of using them and going to prison. Simular situation. But, we will have to take the chance and be sure we are right in deciding to engage in conflict, if a choice is given.
I can appreciate his concern.
------------------
Gary S.
Although Sensei Mattson makes a very good point, i can appreciate the students feelings and/or fear.
For i hold rank of Godan, instructor, student/practicioner of Uech-Ryu and i often fear the "consequences" of engagement of a confrontation. How many times i have avoided situations and walked away when i had other thoughts.
What would they do to me in a court even with justified "self defence" ? How much would the legal fees be ? All providing of course that my years of training pay off for me.
I have known guys with guns who stopped carrying them for fear of using them and going to prison. Simular situation. But, we will have to take the chance and be sure we are right in deciding to engage in conflict, if a choice is given.
I can appreciate his concern.
------------------
Gary S.
Fear of Rank
posted by Gary Santaniello:
For i hold rank of Godan, instructor, student/practicioner of Uech-Ryu and i often fear the "consequences" of engagement of a confrontation. How many times i have avoided situations and walked away when i had other thoughts.
=======================
IMNSHO, this is the crux of training, whether that training is in MA, firearms, what-have-you, for self-defense... As you said later, your training paid off. ANY time that you can safely walk away, that is the proper response. KNOWING that you have the MA skills, a pistol, the means to do the other person harm and making the proper decision to let the other person feel "big" about themselves by walking away is (again IMHO) reaching the highest levels we can in the MA and as good people.
Congradulations...
==============================
What would they do to me in a court even with justified "self defence" ? How much would the legal fees be ?
================
The state of self-defense in Massachusetts is not good... the first criteria being could you have left the situation, the second being were you at a disadvantage in the altercation.
Legal fees? Your costs will probably _start_ in the $50k range and could easily top $100k+. Can you say second mortgage?
======================
I have known guys with guns who stopped carrying them for fear of using them and going to prison. Simular situation. But, we will have to take the chance and be sure we are right in deciding to engage in conflict, if a choice is given.
======================
You can't stop carrying your knowledge, but even with a pistol, either the person needed more training in the lwas of self-defense, more knowledge of the judicious use of deadly force, or they never should have been carrying in the first place. Any decision one makes for personal defense is, by it's very nature, a burden that is heavy with personal responsibility. That goes for MA or firearms training.
=============================
I can appreciate his concern.
==============================
I can as well, but as professor Mattson pointed out:
"Of all the options we have as martial artist to avoid risk, my feeling is that your student has elected one that cannot help him. Better to be fully aware of the law regarding self defense and carry the telephone number of a good lawyer."
be good to each other...
For i hold rank of Godan, instructor, student/practicioner of Uech-Ryu and i often fear the "consequences" of engagement of a confrontation. How many times i have avoided situations and walked away when i had other thoughts.
=======================
IMNSHO, this is the crux of training, whether that training is in MA, firearms, what-have-you, for self-defense... As you said later, your training paid off. ANY time that you can safely walk away, that is the proper response. KNOWING that you have the MA skills, a pistol, the means to do the other person harm and making the proper decision to let the other person feel "big" about themselves by walking away is (again IMHO) reaching the highest levels we can in the MA and as good people.
Congradulations...
==============================
What would they do to me in a court even with justified "self defence" ? How much would the legal fees be ?
================
The state of self-defense in Massachusetts is not good... the first criteria being could you have left the situation, the second being were you at a disadvantage in the altercation.
Legal fees? Your costs will probably _start_ in the $50k range and could easily top $100k+. Can you say second mortgage?
======================
I have known guys with guns who stopped carrying them for fear of using them and going to prison. Simular situation. But, we will have to take the chance and be sure we are right in deciding to engage in conflict, if a choice is given.
======================
You can't stop carrying your knowledge, but even with a pistol, either the person needed more training in the lwas of self-defense, more knowledge of the judicious use of deadly force, or they never should have been carrying in the first place. Any decision one makes for personal defense is, by it's very nature, a burden that is heavy with personal responsibility. That goes for MA or firearms training.
=============================
I can appreciate his concern.
==============================
I can as well, but as professor Mattson pointed out:
"Of all the options we have as martial artist to avoid risk, my feeling is that your student has elected one that cannot help him. Better to be fully aware of the law regarding self defense and carry the telephone number of a good lawyer."
be good to each other...
-
Tony Blauer
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2000 6:01 am
- Location: Montreal, PQ, Canada
- Contact:
Fear of Rank
Another .02 for what its worth...
The reality of 'self-defense' must be explained to this person.
His 'actions' will be looked at not his rank.
Negligence is negligence.
Excessive force is excessive force.
It doesn't matter if you're a white belt or black belt.
The issue of self-control is an important one and certainly one of the reasons good training is important; the ability to walk away is crucial.
But this student [and many others] needs to understand some fundamentals about personal safety and the filter general self-defense laws view it through.
If danger is imminent then action is required. But what action??? Citizens are required to avoid not engage [as opposed to police or soldiers in specific cases].
This is often where a problem occurs because hours upon hours and years of training create a 'Pavlovian' trigger to stay and confront the problem.
*That is why I have physically taught fleeing in our simulations as a mandatory part of the simulation exercise. TALKING about it as an option is not enough - you must do it in training to make it real.
Can ‘we’ fight back? Yes of course. To what degree? Depends on the danger. This is where understanding applications of force is important and self-control again. Why? Because the Law in most cases demands that force must parallel danger [Don’t ask me how to measure that in the heat of the moment!!] but ultimately on judgment day someone will ask ‘why?’
So credible training for credible situations must involve escape, controls, subduing and incapacitating as part of the curriculum and then the individual must evaluate the danger and appropriately select the tools and level of force.
Whether you’re a black belt or not or have no martial background will not matter if those basic guidelines are followed and understood. Someone’s ‘ martial history’ comes into play is when there is a gray area regarding the amount of force used and then we may be judged by a ‘higher standard’…for example:
JUDGE: ”But with your training, couldn’t you have held the person rather then snap his neck and disembowel him Mr. Jones???”
YOU: “Er, I suppose…”
That would be bad.
More food for thought:
Someone who emphasizes grappling submissions may find themselves in a lot of trouble in a multiple assailant scenario or weapon confrontation.
A stand-up fighter might be overwhelmed if attacked while seated and the fight immediately goes to the ground.
The art of self-defense requires far more explanation and exploration than merely focusing on the physical. Aside from training the mental/ psychological and emotional arsenals, we must also learn how to apply, adapt and wield these tools in the real world which is both violent [at times] and litigious [most of the time].
Hope this helped.
Tony Blauer
Blauer Tactical Systems www.tonyblauer.com
The reality of 'self-defense' must be explained to this person.
His 'actions' will be looked at not his rank.
Negligence is negligence.
Excessive force is excessive force.
It doesn't matter if you're a white belt or black belt.
The issue of self-control is an important one and certainly one of the reasons good training is important; the ability to walk away is crucial.
But this student [and many others] needs to understand some fundamentals about personal safety and the filter general self-defense laws view it through.
If danger is imminent then action is required. But what action??? Citizens are required to avoid not engage [as opposed to police or soldiers in specific cases].
This is often where a problem occurs because hours upon hours and years of training create a 'Pavlovian' trigger to stay and confront the problem.
*That is why I have physically taught fleeing in our simulations as a mandatory part of the simulation exercise. TALKING about it as an option is not enough - you must do it in training to make it real.
Can ‘we’ fight back? Yes of course. To what degree? Depends on the danger. This is where understanding applications of force is important and self-control again. Why? Because the Law in most cases demands that force must parallel danger [Don’t ask me how to measure that in the heat of the moment!!] but ultimately on judgment day someone will ask ‘why?’
So credible training for credible situations must involve escape, controls, subduing and incapacitating as part of the curriculum and then the individual must evaluate the danger and appropriately select the tools and level of force.
Whether you’re a black belt or not or have no martial background will not matter if those basic guidelines are followed and understood. Someone’s ‘ martial history’ comes into play is when there is a gray area regarding the amount of force used and then we may be judged by a ‘higher standard’…for example:
JUDGE: ”But with your training, couldn’t you have held the person rather then snap his neck and disembowel him Mr. Jones???”
YOU: “Er, I suppose…”
That would be bad.
More food for thought:
Someone who emphasizes grappling submissions may find themselves in a lot of trouble in a multiple assailant scenario or weapon confrontation.
A stand-up fighter might be overwhelmed if attacked while seated and the fight immediately goes to the ground.
The art of self-defense requires far more explanation and exploration than merely focusing on the physical. Aside from training the mental/ psychological and emotional arsenals, we must also learn how to apply, adapt and wield these tools in the real world which is both violent [at times] and litigious [most of the time].
Hope this helped.
Tony Blauer
Blauer Tactical Systems www.tonyblauer.com
Fear of Rank
Mr. Blauer,
Great post, very helpful, it puts things in a very clear perspective. Thanks!
Great post, very helpful, it puts things in a very clear perspective. Thanks!
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Fear of Rank
Yes, thanks for the great input. This particular person is having difficulty with the role of martial arts and lethal force. Perhaps your inputs will be helpful.
Regards, Rich
Regards, Rich
Fear of Rank
<blockquote>I have known guys with guns who stopped carrying them for fear of using them and going to prison.</blockquote>
Interesting point. Those people had no business carrying guns to begin with, either because of emotional defects or because of lack of training in the judicious application of deadly force. I believe that such training should be compulsory for every person who carries a gun for many reasons.
Massad Ayoob of Lethal Force Institute writes that in a normal conscientious person, a gun on his person [the potential of such lethal power at the twitch of a finger] engenders not belligerence but an enhanced degree of self-control and coolness in those awful moments of impending conflict. Additionally, The mere presence of the weapon and the knowledge of the terrible consequences, win or lose, seems to provide a “face saving” mechanism in justifying withdrawal from engagements, providing a counter to the that little voice in the head that might “nag” about being a “wuss” or a coward! __ the counter: “ Why, if I hadn’t been carrying a gun, I would have let that wise ass have it”! This of course implies that the person really believes s/he has what it takes to apply judicious deadly force to begin with.
Tony Blauer brings up a good point: “This is often where a problem occurs because hours upon hours and years of training create a 'Pavlovian' trigger to stay and confront the problem. “
This is true of both armed and unharmed response deeply programmed by specialized training, which has been internalized.
Rory, in the VSD thread wrote an excellent post on violence triggers: “Be aware that there are two forms of interpersonal violence- most incidents are about territory or dominance (and territory can be subtle and psychological. Fighting for self-image is a form of territory defense.)”
A component of self-image is “outraged pride,” usually compounded if the provocation takes the form of an insult to a man’s wife/girlfriend in a public place by punks. On my forum we have previously discussed the episode of a punk lifting the skirt of a man’s wife in a crowded elevator!
Very difficult to control one’s self under such extreme insult to manhood! Yet, we must keep that murderous instinct in check because of the dire consequences.
One face saving “device” is further provided by panther’s post in reference to the high cost of legal defense in a criminal case once the defender is charged by the police because of his questionable application of force even in self defense. The 50 K _ to 100 K estimate is right on the money! And that does not include defense costs incurred against a civil action to follow with allegations limited to the imagination of the plaintiff’s counsel.
And, of course, the defense costs will be in addition to whatever damages the jury might award either the plaintiff or his estate if a wrongful death action is filed. The financial exposure can be astronomical!
{As an aside, most martial artists and gun owners do not carry a personal umbrella liability policy which, in addition to higher limits over and above the underlying home owner’s policy, provides coverage for defense costs and indemnity awards for at least a million dollars in cases of proven defensive acts of persons or property!}
Thus, along with the defensive physical skills, it is wise to program [to think in terms of dollars] the cost factor of confrontations, hopefully to force the dictates of reason over wounded pride and self respect when justifying the reasons for walking away from confrontations, assuming that we can do so safely, to ourselves and to others, in spite of extreme provocation.
------------------
Van Canna
Interesting point. Those people had no business carrying guns to begin with, either because of emotional defects or because of lack of training in the judicious application of deadly force. I believe that such training should be compulsory for every person who carries a gun for many reasons.
Massad Ayoob of Lethal Force Institute writes that in a normal conscientious person, a gun on his person [the potential of such lethal power at the twitch of a finger] engenders not belligerence but an enhanced degree of self-control and coolness in those awful moments of impending conflict. Additionally, The mere presence of the weapon and the knowledge of the terrible consequences, win or lose, seems to provide a “face saving” mechanism in justifying withdrawal from engagements, providing a counter to the that little voice in the head that might “nag” about being a “wuss” or a coward! __ the counter: “ Why, if I hadn’t been carrying a gun, I would have let that wise ass have it”! This of course implies that the person really believes s/he has what it takes to apply judicious deadly force to begin with.
Tony Blauer brings up a good point: “This is often where a problem occurs because hours upon hours and years of training create a 'Pavlovian' trigger to stay and confront the problem. “
This is true of both armed and unharmed response deeply programmed by specialized training, which has been internalized.
Rory, in the VSD thread wrote an excellent post on violence triggers: “Be aware that there are two forms of interpersonal violence- most incidents are about territory or dominance (and territory can be subtle and psychological. Fighting for self-image is a form of territory defense.)”
A component of self-image is “outraged pride,” usually compounded if the provocation takes the form of an insult to a man’s wife/girlfriend in a public place by punks. On my forum we have previously discussed the episode of a punk lifting the skirt of a man’s wife in a crowded elevator!
Very difficult to control one’s self under such extreme insult to manhood! Yet, we must keep that murderous instinct in check because of the dire consequences.
One face saving “device” is further provided by panther’s post in reference to the high cost of legal defense in a criminal case once the defender is charged by the police because of his questionable application of force even in self defense. The 50 K _ to 100 K estimate is right on the money! And that does not include defense costs incurred against a civil action to follow with allegations limited to the imagination of the plaintiff’s counsel.
And, of course, the defense costs will be in addition to whatever damages the jury might award either the plaintiff or his estate if a wrongful death action is filed. The financial exposure can be astronomical!
{As an aside, most martial artists and gun owners do not carry a personal umbrella liability policy which, in addition to higher limits over and above the underlying home owner’s policy, provides coverage for defense costs and indemnity awards for at least a million dollars in cases of proven defensive acts of persons or property!}
Thus, along with the defensive physical skills, it is wise to program [to think in terms of dollars] the cost factor of confrontations, hopefully to force the dictates of reason over wounded pride and self respect when justifying the reasons for walking away from confrontations, assuming that we can do so safely, to ourselves and to others, in spite of extreme provocation.
------------------
Van Canna
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
Fear of Rank
To all who replied, thanks again.
In reference to Van sensei's recommendation to have 'umbrella' liability insurance, I do carry it. However, beware the fine print. My carrier agreed to cover my martial arts only as long as it was a hobby and I maintained a day job. Had I not inquired they claim I would not have been covered. I have the OK in writing. Now, I'm wondering if I should tell them that I am a gun owner and concealed carrier as well. There is no specific mention of 'firearms' in the policy.
Van, in a thread on your site I talked about a self defense course we are holding at the health club. On Saturday I mentioned it to the father of two young boys in the class and he asked me about the Virginia laws covering handgun use in the home. Before they moved to Richmond, he had stopped a home invasion by confronting the criminal with weapon in hand. The invader immediately apologized and noted that he had just remembered pressing business elsewhere and asked if he could just leave. The homeowner disagreed and held the man at gunpoint until the police arrived. In told him that in VA the home is the castle and what he did would be well within the law here as well. Also, I commended him!
This is the sort of thing that happens many times, with good results all around, that you never see in the media. The mere sight of the weapon stopped the criminal in his tracks!
Rich
In reference to Van sensei's recommendation to have 'umbrella' liability insurance, I do carry it. However, beware the fine print. My carrier agreed to cover my martial arts only as long as it was a hobby and I maintained a day job. Had I not inquired they claim I would not have been covered. I have the OK in writing. Now, I'm wondering if I should tell them that I am a gun owner and concealed carrier as well. There is no specific mention of 'firearms' in the policy.
Van, in a thread on your site I talked about a self defense course we are holding at the health club. On Saturday I mentioned it to the father of two young boys in the class and he asked me about the Virginia laws covering handgun use in the home. Before they moved to Richmond, he had stopped a home invasion by confronting the criminal with weapon in hand. The invader immediately apologized and noted that he had just remembered pressing business elsewhere and asked if he could just leave. The homeowner disagreed and held the man at gunpoint until the police arrived. In told him that in VA the home is the castle and what he did would be well within the law here as well. Also, I commended him!
This is the sort of thing that happens many times, with good results all around, that you never see in the media. The mere sight of the weapon stopped the criminal in his tracks!
Rich
Fear of Rank
Rich I recall the insurance problem. Coverage questions are resolved by legal interpretations of insuring agreements, definitions, and exclusions found within the policy contract.
For example, my policy defines a covered Personal injury to include assault and battery, if committed to protect persons and property.
Under exclusion H of the policy the language is as follows : __ This policy does not provide coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally, unless caused in an effort to protect persons and property. __
Under exclusion A, the policy will not cover any injury arising out of business pursuits.
Business is defined as a trade, occupation, or profession. There is case law upon which such exclusion could be based by the company.
The policy does not exclude any use of firearms! Had the policy intended such exclusion, it would have spelled it out. Thus if they tried to deny coverage for use of a firearm they would not be successful in court. Your carrying a concealed firearm has no bearing on the coverage issue.
If you bring it to their attention, however, they may consider you a higher risk than most policyholders, although I doubt they would say that for fear of legal repercussions, yet they might try to cancel or not renew under some pretext.
Say nothing.
I have handled cases involving defensive uses of firearms under the umbrella in my work, and coverage has always been provided.
Good to see a happy ending to a home invasion.
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited May 29, 2000).]
For example, my policy defines a covered Personal injury to include assault and battery, if committed to protect persons and property.
Under exclusion H of the policy the language is as follows : __ This policy does not provide coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally, unless caused in an effort to protect persons and property. __
Under exclusion A, the policy will not cover any injury arising out of business pursuits.
Business is defined as a trade, occupation, or profession. There is case law upon which such exclusion could be based by the company.
The policy does not exclude any use of firearms! Had the policy intended such exclusion, it would have spelled it out. Thus if they tried to deny coverage for use of a firearm they would not be successful in court. Your carrying a concealed firearm has no bearing on the coverage issue.
If you bring it to their attention, however, they may consider you a higher risk than most policyholders, although I doubt they would say that for fear of legal repercussions, yet they might try to cancel or not renew under some pretext.
Say nothing.
I have handled cases involving defensive uses of firearms under the umbrella in my work, and coverage has always been provided.
Good to see a happy ending to a home invasion.
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited May 29, 2000).]
Fear of Rank
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Van Canna:
If you bring it to their attention, however, they may consider you a higher risk than most policyholders, although I doubt they would say that for fear of legal repercussions, yet they might try to cancel or not renew under some pretext.
Say nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely say nothing! There is no fear of legal repercussions. Insurance companys can and do routinely deny coverage for defensive use of a firearm. I was just involved in a lengthy discussion of this specific denial a couple of months ago. An acquaintance who lives in Western Massachusetts was denied all of his homeowners insurance because when he was asked if he owned firearms, he made the very big mistake of answering yes. Not every insurance company is this bad, but they're getting that way. At my last renewal time, my agent sent me a "questionaire" which contained what I consider to be many "boundary" questions. One was firearm ownership, another was "hunting" equipment, and others I don't recall... I sent it back blank with a little note that said that I had no increased risk factors since originally insured. They renewed, but not before I got a phone call asking why I hadn't answered. I said I was too busy for that BS and told the agent either that company could renew or I could find another.
Also, just want to tell everyone what a great thread this is...
Blauer-sempai,
Even though I agree with the flight aspects and know that it is a requirement. In most places it is only a requirement "if you can safely retreat". In other words, if the only way I have to avoid the confrontation is to run across a busy street, the requirement can't be carried out safely and becomes null and void. (This isn't a disagreement it's an observation) To train for flight, you must set up a scenario where the person either can or can't flee safely. I, for one, won't turn my back on a knife wielder that is closer than 100-150 yards. (yep, I said yards... think Tuler drill ) So unless I had a means of backing away, I'd make other arrangements/manuevers.
be good to each other... thanks again.
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 29, 2000).]
Dang it all... can't spell after a weekend off!
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 29, 2000).]
If you bring it to their attention, however, they may consider you a higher risk than most policyholders, although I doubt they would say that for fear of legal repercussions, yet they might try to cancel or not renew under some pretext.
Say nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolutely say nothing! There is no fear of legal repercussions. Insurance companys can and do routinely deny coverage for defensive use of a firearm. I was just involved in a lengthy discussion of this specific denial a couple of months ago. An acquaintance who lives in Western Massachusetts was denied all of his homeowners insurance because when he was asked if he owned firearms, he made the very big mistake of answering yes. Not every insurance company is this bad, but they're getting that way. At my last renewal time, my agent sent me a "questionaire" which contained what I consider to be many "boundary" questions. One was firearm ownership, another was "hunting" equipment, and others I don't recall... I sent it back blank with a little note that said that I had no increased risk factors since originally insured. They renewed, but not before I got a phone call asking why I hadn't answered. I said I was too busy for that BS and told the agent either that company could renew or I could find another.
Also, just want to tell everyone what a great thread this is...
Blauer-sempai,
Even though I agree with the flight aspects and know that it is a requirement. In most places it is only a requirement "if you can safely retreat". In other words, if the only way I have to avoid the confrontation is to run across a busy street, the requirement can't be carried out safely and becomes null and void. (This isn't a disagreement it's an observation) To train for flight, you must set up a scenario where the person either can or can't flee safely. I, for one, won't turn my back on a knife wielder that is closer than 100-150 yards. (yep, I said yards... think Tuler drill
) So unless I had a means of backing away, I'd make other arrangements/manuevers.be good to each other... thanks again.
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 29, 2000).]
Dang it all... can't spell after a weekend off!
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 29, 2000).]
Fear of Rank
Good advice by panther. Keep your firearms a secret from prying eyes and “tongues”! Today you trust no one.
It is also important to be aware of an important distinction.
The basic homeowner’s liability policy covers against fortuitous [accidental __ unexpected]
Negligent acts. Any intentional act is excluded, as well as any bodily injury that is expected!
A defensive technique, whether empty handed or with a weapon, although justified, is still seen as an intentional act with expected bodily injury resulting there from, and therefore excluded! It is usually the intent that comes under serious scrutiny, and there is lots of case law on this subject, usually in favor of the exclusion!
On the flip side, the personal liability umbrella policy will provide the coverage not found under the basic homeowner’s policy as to intentional acts performed in an effort to protect persons and property.
All other intentional acts still remain excluded!
There is nothing in the umbrella policy language that says that coverage will be denied if the insured performs an act to protect a person [himself or other] with a firearm!
However, not all umbrella policies have this coverage for self-protection. Better check yours very carefully.
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited May 29, 2000).]
It is also important to be aware of an important distinction.
The basic homeowner’s liability policy covers against fortuitous [accidental __ unexpected]
Negligent acts. Any intentional act is excluded, as well as any bodily injury that is expected!
A defensive technique, whether empty handed or with a weapon, although justified, is still seen as an intentional act with expected bodily injury resulting there from, and therefore excluded! It is usually the intent that comes under serious scrutiny, and there is lots of case law on this subject, usually in favor of the exclusion!
On the flip side, the personal liability umbrella policy will provide the coverage not found under the basic homeowner’s policy as to intentional acts performed in an effort to protect persons and property.
All other intentional acts still remain excluded!
There is nothing in the umbrella policy language that says that coverage will be denied if the insured performs an act to protect a person [himself or other] with a firearm!
However, not all umbrella policies have this coverage for self-protection. Better check yours very carefully.
------------------
Van Canna
[This message has been edited by Van Canna (edited May 29, 2000).]
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Fear of Rank
Good Discussion, Rich, Van-Sensei, et.al.,
What types of insurance should we carry if we rent, instead of own? What if we live with a parent or other family member who owns the property? Say they have no interest in the martial arts, and don't want to add to their existing homeowner's policy with any kind of rider or addendum.
I have malpractice/liability insurance that covers me against a medical error (I'm a pharmacist in a hospital). Am I covered for acts of self-defense, while in the workplace? What if I'm attacked by a psychiatry patient, or a visitor or even a memebr of the hospital staff? What if I'm held up, I give the perp all the narcotics he wants, but he then attacks me and I defend myself?
Will my liability policy protect my interests then?
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 30, 2000).]
What types of insurance should we carry if we rent, instead of own? What if we live with a parent or other family member who owns the property? Say they have no interest in the martial arts, and don't want to add to their existing homeowner's policy with any kind of rider or addendum.
I have malpractice/liability insurance that covers me against a medical error (I'm a pharmacist in a hospital). Am I covered for acts of self-defense, while in the workplace? What if I'm attacked by a psychiatry patient, or a visitor or even a memebr of the hospital staff? What if I'm held up, I give the perp all the narcotics he wants, but he then attacks me and I defend myself?
Will my liability policy protect my interests then?
Gene
[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited May 30, 2000).]
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
Fear of Rank
Great topic. . . while reading Van's comments regarding insurance coverage I realized that individuals could be prevented from owning firearms by future insurance exclusions!
The thugs of the world don't worry about insurance coverage, any more than they do about laws. However, how many law abiding citizens would forgo insurance coverage in order to own a gun?
Perhaps the gun lobbiest should redirect some of their attention to this subject.
------------------
GEM
The thugs of the world don't worry about insurance coverage, any more than they do about laws. However, how many law abiding citizens would forgo insurance coverage in order to own a gun?
Perhaps the gun lobbiest should redirect some of their attention to this subject.
------------------
GEM
