Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 445 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 30  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:43 am
Posts: 119
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Thanks, Josann.

Jorvik: "In my book self defence is anything that stops you getting hurt." Nice and concise and sums it up.

Quote:

dont do stupid things
dont go stupid places
dont hang out with stupid people


Rules to live by. -- I agree

More later

_________________
Rick Wilson - http://wpd-rc.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 519
There are different ways and languages to describe the same phenomena or technique. I don't use the term "Voids" I think in terms of "Centreline principle".
This is a general theory that occurs in many arts, Japanese swordsmanship probably being the main one. The idea is that there is a pole in the centre of your body from the top of your head to the centre of yours hips, if you can move that pole either from below or above then you can destroy the balance, also there is the concept of different centrelines, usually three, one on each shoulder and one down the centre, if you control two of these then you can control balance. When I did Kazi Arashi Aiki jutsu the atemi waza was directed at lines running down the body, designed to hit vital centres. In some schools of Wing Chun they will attack the centreline, this is called chasing centre, as opposed to chasing hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:48 am
Posts: 349
Good stuff Rick , lots of principled thought that anyone can work from and expirement with .

Jorvik yeah we use words and it becomes difficult , but often discussing the same thing , I use voids , centre line and the three lines , they all apply to Uechi , your description of controlling the lines is spot on , where two outside lines intersect/join in a balanced person you find there centre , so its really just two ends of the spectrum describing the same result IMHO , it depends which angle your coming from . Where they go , or Where they rest .

this is were the chinese stuff comes to the fore , the quas and the body working like a book around the spine , control one half of the book or the spine , and the rest will follow .

good coment .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 12:43 am
Posts: 119
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Self Defence: “Anything that stops you getting hurt”.

I am going to work with Ray’s definition even though I am sure some could expand it (to include family etc.) or modify it to fit their own approach , but for me I think it sums up the main point of self-defence – I do not get hurt.

It gives a simple goal – I do not get hurt.

How do I see that I do not get hurt?

Stay away from dangerous places.

Stay away from dangerous/stupid people.

Stay aware of my surroundings.

Learn de-escalation and diffusion techniques.

Learn to control the ego impulses – to avoid what Rory and others call the monkey dance.

Learn (or attempt to learn) to accept the chemical cocktail.

Learn (or attempt to learn) our freeze and how to minimize or break it.

Learn to move.

Learn to move others.

Learn to hit hard.

Learn to take a hit.

Learn (or attempt to learn) the survival mindset.

Learn to maintain your structure.

Learn to break the aggressor(s) structure.

Learn takedowns.

Learn locks/breaks.

Learn strangulations.

Learn (or attempt to learn) how to go from 0 to 60 in a split second.

Learn how to present your “defence of self” to potential witnesses when the situation allows. This is both in what you say and how your posture.

Learn the legalities of self-defence in your area and any area you are traveling to.

Learn how to verbalize and articulate what you observe that caused you to defend yourself – note this is most often in the after effects of the chemical cocktail dump.

Addendum to the last point – learn that the LEOs do not know you and are there to gather information to determine what happened, by whom and to who. The “bad guy(s)” will lie. The LEOs do not know you are the “good guy” here and therefore anything you say that could be misunderstood will be held against you in a court of law. Therefore you must learn when verbalizing and articulating what happened to avoid verbal diarrhea and emotionally charged statements. Stay with simple concise facts that all lead to you to doing just what you had to do to prevent yourself from getting hurt and nothing more.

Learn not only the criminal laws in regard to self defence in your area but also the civil laws because even if found innocent based on self defence you may still face a law suit.

ONE MASSIVELY IMPORTANT point that came through to me loud and clear reading Rory’s material which seems obvious once you focus on it but is often missed – self defence is an affirmative defence.
This means you are admitting to the act of assault/homicide – you are guilty of the act and the courts no longer have any burden to prove that. YOUR defence is that you were justified in committing the assault/homicide BUT now the burden is on you to prove that in court.

A civil court may not be as cut and dried as criminal nor are they required to find in your favour just because you were acquitted in criminal court.

So once again I want to stress that anything you say that could be taken very differently than you intended can be used against you. Facts can be disputed but most often it is emotionally charged statements that are distorted.

Although this once comes much sooner if we looked at a learning progression for self defence I have left it for the end because it is a big topic and one that is not often addressed in most self defence or martial arts schools -- Learn (or attempt to learn) what your boundaries are. What is it you are really prepared to do and in what situations. Circumstance can add hesitation in decisions. In one of Rory’s books he present a few scenarios one of which is you have a gun and a man is running at you with a knife screaming he is going to kill you – what do you do? Not too big a decision for many. Okay now the man running at you is your favourite uncle who is drunk and having a flash back post-traumatic stress event – do you shoot? Are you hesitating? What if the person is…. You get the picture.

For some of the above I have my opinions and what I do to train and in others I can only refer to what “specialists” (insert the term that works for you here) might write.

_________________
Rick Wilson - http://wpd-rc.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:48 am
Posts: 349
Excellent list

One thing I would add, respect your mind and body and keep them in tune.

We work with whatever baseline we have, look after what you've got


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 205
I think the graph of major and minor voids is great and I plan on practicing and processing it that way-an advantage of having sons in their early 20's. Repetition of these concepts hopefully will engrain it.

In a practical situation it, at least for me, may not look the same. Might come out like this:(if I'm lucky)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Fl_l9SUfs

I know Jorvik doesn't like this guy, but I think this approach would work as well, especially after some sofening up strikes or distractions.

I like Morrison's quote that "Adrenaline hinders fine motor skills, but it enhances gross motor skills."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 519
Rick
Excellent post, one thing that I would add which I think Stryke brought up on another thread is being a "grey man".or what I call being invisible. I learned how to become invisible when I used to work in the courts. The first time that I went to court I was instructed in this by a young girl colleague who had it mastered to a fine degree. In my job I had to attend various courts to help prosecutors with the case, I would have to walk across a landing filled full of defendants and their families and friends, and I had to wear smart clothes ,so I stuck out like a sore thumb. The trick was partly to plan your route well in advance, to know the court buildings geography, all the secret little passages that the judges and court clerks used, so that you were only in view for a much shorter time, when on view you never made eye contact, kept your head down and hurried from one court to another, it helped if you looked like you were in a hurry, because people were much less likely to stop you, also if you had paperwork in your hand.to the criminals you were their enemy, but if they asked you who you were then you just use the name of a famous defence firm and say that you worked for them and not the prosecution. You also became very adept at moving quickly and quietly because you would have to go into a court and sit next to the prosecutor, and find out what they wanted without disturbing the court.
When the court closed and I had to head back to the office I would take my tie off and slip on a cagoule and a woolly hat and hurry away from the court. If people saw me they would think of me as a guy in a wooly hat and bright cagoule, not the guy in the suit :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29733
Marcus, here's something worth keeping in mind as we train:

The reality of violence is uncomfortable to contemplate. We all tend to think other people are pretty much like us. We don’t want to hurt anyone so we have a hard time believing others would want to hurt us. But there are those among us who are not only willing to hurt someone else, they want to. It makes them feel good.

This is what an attacker is. He is not just making a mistake or having a miscommunication. He wants to dominate you, manipulate you, trick you, intimidate you, or force you to do what he wants.

This aspect of human nature needs to be part of our training...

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 205
I hear you Ray, but the same logic applies to police and LEOs and I think we can learn from them can't we? They often fight with drunks in groups as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 519
Quote
"I hear you Ray, but the same logic applies to police and LEOs and I think we can learn from them can't we? They often fight with drunks in groups as well."

I just think Rick's description of a takedown was infinetly better


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:48 am
Posts: 349
Van there is real evil out there for sure,I believe in training for the worst of it and being able to dial back down

Clearing up there intention is you're first goal, establishing them as unreasonable, reading the intent

As Morrison said, how much information do you need


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29733
Rick
Quote:
ONE MASSIVELY IMPORTANT point that came through to me loud and clear reading Rory’s material which seems obvious once you focus on it but is often missed – self defence is an affirmative defence.

This means you are admitting to the act of assault/homicide – you are guilty of the act and the courts no longer have any burden to prove that. YOUR defence is that you were justified in committing the assault/homicide BUT now the burden is on you to prove that in court.

A civil court may not be as cut and dried as criminal nor are they required to find in your favour just because you were acquitted in criminal court.

So once again I want to stress that anything you say that could be taken very differently than you intended can be used against you. Facts can be disputed but most often it is emotionally charged statements that are distorted.


This is indeed something we need to continuosly keep uppermost in our minds. There are many 'sliced fine' opinions out there.

The most crucial part of this, as Rick points out, is what we tell the police after an event, when we tell the police, how we tell the police,and where do we tell the police.
All this while trapped in emotional chaos where your worst enemy now is your tongue trying to wildly flap out of your mouth.

Let's examine a few legal details:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/0 ... fense.html
Quote:
What's an affirmative defense?

An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.

To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29733
http://www.kohlerandhart.com/articles/p ... f-defense/
Quote:
Self defense is considered an “affirmative defense,” meaning it provides justification for the defendant’s actions, rather than denying them. If a defendant in a court of law pleads not guilty due to self defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the amount of force used by the defendant was not in fact necessary.

They may do this by making one of two basic arguments: that self defense was not required in that situation, or that the defendant used excessive force, meaning that he or she hurt the other person more than was necessary.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29733
And this is the most critical aspect of our 'exposures'...as I have seen in my work investigating cases, questioning prisoners in jail; being deposed, summonsed to trial as a material witness _balanced on the precarious rail of criminal/civil overlap.

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/17234.htm

1.
Quote:
Prosecutors nearly always prefer a civil claim to be delayed until a criminal case is resolved. They fear a victim’s interest in a civil case may be used to impeach the victim’s credibility in the criminal case testimony. This concern is greatest in cases where the victim’s credibility is paramount.


One case here that I had _involved the alleged rape of a prostitute while selling drugs at a street corner to a circus worker...our company providing liability insurance to circus personnel.

The prostitute was claiming all kinds of damages, her attorney had filed suit against the circus.

The circus employee was in jail[awaiting trial] when I talked to him...[with his criminal defense lawyers'permission] _he gave me information and evidence to the contrary...which the civil defense lawyer used convincingly to get the civil suit dismissed, and the employee going free. Nothing but a setup.

The lawyer for the prostitute made the mistake of filing a 'claim' too soon.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29733
And this is something not too well known
Quote:
The victim’s lawyer should always attend the sentencing hearing. Mitigating testimony offered at the hearing may reveal evidence of diminished cognitive abilities or other mental deficiencies. While the criminal defense is offering this evidence to explain why the perpetrator should not be judged too harshly, the plaintiff attorney can use the same evidence to argue that an intentional-act exclusion in a liability insurance policy should not prevent coverage for the incident.


Our company would come up against these arguments when denying intentional acts coverage.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 445 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 30  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group