9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Finlay
Finlay's picture
License to kill
Hello I posted this question on another forum and got some very interesting responses. Basically does your art have techniques that could be considered lethal?

Now, whereas many techniques could result in fatality such as basic punches and kicks. I am mainly referring to techniques that have the intention to cause great harm or even death.

As an example, I saw a instructor teaching a knife defence where he turns the knife back on the assailant and stabs him in the stomach, this was followed by a knee to the hilt of the knife to make sure it went deep enough.

No matter what you think of the effectoveness technique it would appear that the intention here is to kill another person.

This is not the only example of such teaching that I have seen.

Personally I have my own view's on such techniques and they are not in support of them at all.

However, for other I would like to ask

Do we have the right to teach such techniques?

If so when and to whom?

If we do teach such techniques are we also responsible in some way for any legal or personal problems that may develop as a result of our teaching?

Are these techniques taken seriously or are they merely to give a martial art or instructor some sort of viability

Marc
Marc's picture

Hi Finlay,

this will be an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to reading the answers as they come in.

Finlay wrote:
Basically does your art have techniques that could be considered lethal?

I do karate, so based on what we can find within kata I must say, it does. There's some pretty nasty stuff in there.

Finlay wrote:
Now, whereas many techniques could result in fatality such as basic punches and kicks. I am mainly referring to techniques that have the intention to cause great harm or even death.

Well, firstly, I think you're right that any technique that hits the enemy really hard in a vital target area or that makes the enemy fall to the ground can result in fatality.

I would say, it is hard to draw a line between a) techniques that intend to "just leave the enemy unconcious or unable to follow you", and b) techniques that indend to "kill the enemy".

Basically it depends on how hard you impact them and how and where they drop. If you simply trip them and they stumble onto a blunt object they might die. Was that a lethal technique? If you choke them and they fall unconcious but don't die, was that a lethal technique?

Basically I would draw a different line: Do I, as a person who claims to act in self-defence, intend to stop an attack to facilitate my escape or do I intend to annihilate the enemy.

Finlay wrote:
As an example, I saw a instructor teaching a knife defence where he turns the knife back on the assailant and stabs him in the stomach, this was followed by a knee to the hilt of the knife to make sure it went deep enough.

No matter what you think of the effectoveness technique it would appear that the intention here is to kill another person.

For a knife defence that sounds a bit overly complicated to me. But let's assume there are those who can pull it off. I think context is important here. Is this a method taught to soldiers or to civilians?

If we are talking self-defence, the question would be: Is it a reasonable level of force to use against someone who is attacking with a knife? That depends on the circumstances and juristiction.

Finlay wrote:
Do we have the right to teach such techniques?

If so when and to whom?

If we do teach such techniques are we also responsible in some way for any legal or personal problems that may develop as a result of our teaching?

This can only be objectively answered at a legal level. - Again, I suppose it would depend on the context. Do you teach villains for commiting crime, soldiers for the battle field, or civilians for self-defence. There might be different laws in different countries with regards to teaching martial techniques. I am not aware of any law against teaching lethal self-defence techniques.

Of course the question of a right to teach lethal techniques could also be discussed at the ethics level, the moral level, the value level or the belief level. But that could end in endles back and forth.

Finlay wrote:
Are these techniques taken seriously or are they merely to give a martial art or instructor some sort of viability

May I dare say?: It depends.

Take care, Marc

Drew Loto
Drew Loto's picture

For me, the question is out of step with my current thinking.  Rather than thinking in terms of one discrete technique versus another, I try to focus my study on principles, be they of movement or anatomy or what have you.  These can be applied lethally or non-lethally and it is more important for me to understand the consequences of various choices.

On a different note, I have often found practicing techniques wherein the tori turns the weapon back on the uke to be more for people enjoying the fantasy of training. When we actually contextualize a training session with a discussion of laws, consewuences, etc, people usually stop acting as if their techniques ought to end in the death of their enemy every time.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

There can sometimes be a gratuitous indulgence in “uber-violence” in order to be “harder core than thou”. For example, I recently saw an alleged self-defence sequence that had the “defender” bite the “attacker’s” throat prior to a takedown. The bite was entirely unnecessary and would impede the flow and efficiency of the takedown. It was there to shock / excite.

There are times when biting can be useful and necessary, but in this case, it was a juvenile attempt to appear “hardcore”.

Finlay wrote:
As an example, I saw an instructor teaching a knife defence where he turns the knife back on the assailant and stabs him in the stomach, this was followed by a knee to the hilt of the knife to make sure it went deep enough.

Finlay wrote:
If we do teach such techniques are we also responsible in some way for any legal or personal problems that may develop as a result of our teaching?

I was once with Marc MacYoung in the UK and we were watching a martial arts class. They were doing “knife defence” which involved dropping the enemy to the floor, taking the knife off them, and then repeatedly stabbing them with it. It’s hard to see how the frenzied stabbing at the end could be viewed as either “necessary” or “reasonable” (the two main legal tests for self-defence in the UK).

I can guess that the teacher may have brushed off legality with “better judged by 12 than carried by 6”, “there are no rules in a street fight” or, “if he is trying to kill you, then you can kill them”. However, the truth is they are not considering the legality of their actions. It’s therefore not about real world self-defence.

Any true approach to self-defence would consider legalities and have that integrated into the actions and habits the approach aimed to engender. What it is really about is indulging in fantasy violence.

It’s just yet another example of people recreating the “realities” of self-protection so they can play out their movie inspired fantasies. It’s therefore belongs in the same camp as all other fantasy approaches to “self-defence”. I talked about this in the recent podcast on “reinventing violence”:

https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/content/reinventing-violence-podcast

Every technique we do has the potential to be fatal. People are killed by single punches to the head (and the resulting fall) all the time. We therefore need to have a very high threshold for the use of violence. We need to know that the only time we will employ violence is when where there truly is no other choice. From that position, we can have certainty that whatever happens was truly unavoidable.

We also need to be mindful that the objective is to secure our safety. Everything needed to keep us safe must be done. The things not needed to ensure our safety don’t need done.

1 - We need to be sure the violence is always truely necessary.

2 - We need to be sure we will do everything that is required to ensure our safety.

3 - We need to be sure we won't do things that didn’t need done.

If we hit those three requirements we will be practical, effective, efficient and legal.

Bottom line, don’t bite the throat for nothing but the “fun” of it!

Those who feel the need to peddle unnecessary uber-violence may want to look a little deeper at what is going on there. As do those who find themselves drawn to it. The motivation is not truly about “self-defence”. There is something unhealthy there. It should be addressed; not indulged or encouraged.  

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

I think there are a lot of people that like to think what they are doing is "lethal" when really it's not. Human's seem to be a strange mix of very fragile "hit head on floor = die" AND tough "get shot, beaten up, stabbed = still basically OK". Without bad luck (the hit head scenario), over whelming numbers (a group stomping), weapons (force multiplier) or true evil intent to murder (continuing the violence when the person is KO'd and defenceless), people are fairly resilient.

I think there are people LARPing things like neck breaks and vital point techniques that in reality, while still perhaps being effective, would not be as lethal as they may imply (or enjoy visualising).

One of the big things I've got from training with, and reading the work of, people like Iain and John Titchen is how self defence MUST have legal underpinnings. It's not a wild west free-for-all.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

I agree with you both Iain and with PASmith.

Training like this is a doulbe edged, if one believes everything they do to be "deadly", they are both training to go to escalated responses when unneccessary (possibly dangerous to others), AND their idea of continuum of force is so unrealistic that their skills are bound to be similarly unrealistic, which is more a danger to them than anyone else.

Additionally, there are huge ethical issues with this sort of training mentality; i've found that often people who train this way have both an unhealthy fear of and fascination with violence. 

There is certainly a place in training escalated techniques, but if everything a person is doing is in this category, they likely have some very unrealistic ideas about violence, and are possibly engaging in some ulgy fantasy as well.

Anf
Anf's picture

If my instructor encouraged us to train to stab someone to death, knowing perfectly well that we're all civilians, I would immediately extract my son (who trains with us) and walk out of that circus / mcdojo.

How can any instructor, in good faith, take money off people to teach them to be psychos? Self defence is not just about staying alive. Or even if it is, surely it is about preserving one's life. By that I don't mean just ensuring the continuation of breathing. My life involves spending quality time with my family and friends, taking walks in the countryside, doing a job I enjoy etc. What kind of instructor trains people to throw all of that away to spend the rest of their life in jail?

JD
JD's picture

Hi Finlay,

I wont repeat what other's have already covered, but the question regards vicarious liability usually applies in connection with employment law, for example, an employer can be held accountable for his employees actions, especially if it's benefiting or in the interests of the business in question. There's nothing to suggest this applies with instructors teaching a pupil ''lethal'' techniques in a self defence context, I can't find anything relating to the subject on the web, unless I'm not looking in the right place.

There is such a thing as contributory negligence, but this doesn't really apply to the situation of an instructor being liable for their pupils actions outside of the dojo.

I personally don't believe that any instructor can be held accountable for pupils actions when not in a place of training, as long as the instructor teaches with the correct ethics and in the right manner, there would be no come back in my opinion.

If I teach my pupil a neck crank and tell them this has serious implications and can cause incredible damage to a person, to consider the need before apllication and also evaluate my audience, for example, I wouldn't teach this to a young kid like I would an adult, for obvious reasons. If that pupil then goes out and applies this technique to someone for reasons other than self defence, I have instructed in good faith and wouldn't be viewed as aiding in something I didn't know about, nor had any control over.

If I then taught the same technique and told that pupil to go and use it on someone in particular or encouraged the use of such a dangerous technique outside the dojo, not in the use of self defence, that would be different and regardless to whether I was an instructor, I would be to part blame for what might entail, subject to someone being able to prove that I encouraged it.

Ultimately, if you're teaching correct technique under the correct manner with the right intentions and taking into consideration the words ''necessary'' and ''reasonable force'' when applying whatever you teach with an approach to defend and get away instead of taking things too far, it's pretty safe to say you shouldn't be liable under UK law for other people's actions.

I agree with the above, too many techniques taught in the incorrect manner of overkill, ego and individual hang ups are usually the reasons for it, a shame really.

All the best to all,

JD

Dennis Krawec
Dennis Krawec's picture

The application and training of  Karate should be centered on what you need - needs based training.

For most of us self defence training and as exercise for health suits our needs, without a need for training to kill. Though we should not be ignorant of such techniques and know they are available to us in dire need. They will just not be the primary focus of our training.

Not that long ago I included a Youtube video link for a knife disarm application from Pinan Shodan/Hiean Nidan, which also included the defender the single stab the throat of his attacker. While the disarm technique is insightful for self defence use, the counter attack would be more suited to someone in the armed forces where killing is generally part of the implied job description, or for James Bond. Those in the military are likely trained to be as efficient as possible, minimize ther profile, and move on to the next target. Which fits their need of kill as necessary to complete a mission and stay alive.

However, its more than likely probable that even someone in serving in the armed forces of any nation would not need to train to the gratuitous level being discussed here as it is more fitting of Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger or other Hollywood horror move antagonist. The only actual application  I could think of would be as to “send a message” from a member of organized crime.