Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:20 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: What Uechi Technique...
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29730
...will you use here??

http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/6937 ... eed-a-Gun/

:lol:

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Jeddore
I would have gotten out of the car and reassured him the next world is a peaceful place...my having been hit by a car has given me a first hand experience in such pain.

_________________
Léo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 3:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1742
Location: USA
He used threatening language, was armed with a deadly weapon, and the car was initially stuck in traffic. In Alaska, we call that just cause. :wink:

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29730
A good example of our primal brain going into a state of confusion at 'zero hour'_

Let's see_

1. Do we have 'jeopardy' at the moment of attack?

2. The driver is shocked by what's happening and 'denial' initially sets in.

3. There is glass flying all over the inside of the car, pelting him on the sides, front and back…if not wearing glasses there is danger of been blinded by the particles of shattered glass.

4. First instinct is to get away, not to run the demented fool over, possibly killing him with all the ugly ramifications that will follow.

5. Was the driver afraid of grave bodily harm if his car got blocked in or if he tried to get out and run?

6. Obviously that is an EDP [emotionally demented person] How will the law look upon this situation?

7. If the driver intentionally runs him over in self defense…will he be second guessed by a jury if he is charged with vehicular homicide?

Would he be charged by the police?

" Did you have to run the man over sir? Had you exhausted all possibilities of escape''?

8. Do you think that, if the driver killed him by running him over, that his ....Relatives [estate] would or would not bring a wrongful death action against the driver?

9. So the video clip shows the driver intentionally using his car as a weapon to defend himself and kill him by running him over.

10. The driver so states to the police…" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life" This statement becomes part of the police report.

11. Assume the driver is charged criminally by the police but found innocent by a criminal court of law. Then assume a wrongful death action is brought against the driver by the decedent's estate.

A] what will his civil liability potential look like?

12. Now assume the same charges by the police…but he is found guilty in criminal law.

b] What will his civil liability potential be in civil court?

13. Assume he is not charged by the police or the driver is found not guilty criminally…

Then he is served a summons and complaint for a wrongful death action by the estate of the decedent…

a] would the driver's auto insurance company accept defense and indemnity under the policy?

14. Assume the driver is found guilty of criminal charges…then is sued for wrongful death…

b] would his auto insurance accept defense and indemnification?

15. Assume your car is blocked in or stalls out. Would you remain in the car or would you get out? And if you get out would you try to run or would you stand in sanchin and fight? And if so what technique would you use?

~~

Remember what he stated to the police …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 6:01 am
Posts: 1445
Location: Jeddore
Quote:
Remember what he stated to the police …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"


Showing the video in court, a half decent lawyer should convince a jury that your defense was fleeing the scene. In your car was the best option (the perpetrator was armed and looked physically fit). The fact he stood in the way of exit forced you to run him over as fear for your life was a reasonable assumption. "I had to" NOT "I wanted to" or "intended to" is a true and believable statement to clarify the statement made to police after the traumatic event in my opinion

_________________
Léo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Murphy North Carolina
Seen this video before. I'm afraid I don't come down on the side of those who think this person was mentally unstable. He's just mean and evil. First, we have an anonymous video of him ranting and raving about how this is his corner. This video didn't just happen. Who took it, some random person who just ran into him and decided to give him a platform. NOT. It was staged and planned for this busy intersection. Notice how he just happens to have a tire iron placed next to the road where he's planning on mayhem. Second, he takes far too long to explain his actions. Again, this was planned. And I can easily see how the person in the suv felt that they couldn't get away. They tried several times with no success. Would I have run over the person, in a New York minute. Not sure how that state is but the castle doctrine would have kicked in here in Florida. And should this "entire" video be played for a jury it would be a slam dunk for the prosecutor. I believe mainline society is tired of being in fear of folks like this. Could his family sue. Sure, anyone can sue anyone. But I really don't believe that this jury in either the criminal or civil case would come down on this persons side. If I were the prosecutor in the civil case, or the defense atty in the civil case I'd say it was the person taking the video (who had plenty of time but chose not to report the pending catastrophe)'s fault. Getting out of the vehicle and using a Uechi technique is a tough one to call. You have to be very confident in your art and ability to at least absorb one or two thumps with the tire iron before you could slap him around. And if you chose to do that, then what makes us think we still wouldn't get sued because we were "karate" experts. I suspect getting in a car and letting someone else do to our car what happened here would change our decision making process. That's my 2 cents........that being said, possible the parry/circle block elbow just after the Seisan jump or the first move after the three strikes at the beginning of Seisan. The palms on top of each other striking the throat while the elbows hopefully parry the swinging tire arm????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 118
Location: Murphy North Carolina
Seen this video before. I'm afraid I don't come down on the side of those who think this person was mentally unstable. He's just mean and evil. First, we have an anonymous video of him ranting and raving about how this is his corner. This video didn't just happen. Who took it, some random person who just ran into him and decided to give him a platform. NOT. It was staged and planned for this busy intersection. Notice how he just happens to have a tire iron placed next to the road where he's planning on mayhem. Second, he takes far too long to explain his actions. Again, this was planned. And I can easily see how the person in the suv felt that they couldn't get away. They tried several times with no success. Would I have run over the person, in a New York minute. Not sure how that state is but the castle doctrine would have kicked in here in Florida. And should this "entire" video be played for a jury it would be a slam dunk for the prosecutor. I believe mainline society is tired of being in fear of folks like this. Could his family sue. Sure, anyone can sue anyone. But I really don't believe that this jury in either the criminal or civil case would come down on this persons side. If I were the prosecutor in the civil case, or the defense atty in the civil case I'd say it was the person taking the video (who had plenty of time but chose not to report the pending catastrophe)'s fault. Getting out of the vehicle and using a Uechi technique is a tough one to call. You have to be very confident in your art and ability to at least absorb one or two thumps with the tire iron before you could slap him around. And if you chose to do that, then what makes us think we still wouldn't get sued because we were "karate" experts. I suspect getting in a car and letting someone else do to our car what happened here would change our decision making process. That's my 2 cents.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17030
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Van Canna wrote:

What Uechi Technique will you use here??

Car-ken.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:36 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
Posts: 1742
Location: USA
I have to agree that the video is damning in front of any jury. I don't think Uechi would be something I'd fall back on for facing a crowbar, but as a lowly hachi-kyu, that may just be because a goodly chunk of my toolbox comes from other sources. Personally, I would prefer car-fu or handgun-fu. If you're armed with CCW, and you hit them with your car instead, but don't run them over, only knock them down to give time to get away, I think you could easily argue that you took the option least likely to kill the assailant.

But that's alot of ifs and guessing, and I'm glad I don't live in Massachussetts, D.C., New York, or California. :twisted: If that were the case, it would be cheaper to run away and let them beat the car to a pulp.

_________________
Life begins & ends cold, naked & covered in crap.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17030
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Jason Rees wrote:

it would be cheaper to run away and let them beat the car to a pulp.

Every dog (and thug) has a chase instinct. Getting out of that car would be mistake number 1. That in and of itself could be perceived as a threat to him. Running would be mistake number 2.

Not gonna do it - not even in the People's Republic of Massachusetts. A malicious, athletic male USING a crowbar on your occupied Castle is reason enough to take action. As it turns out, there is no safe exit. The broken window is the last straw. A potentially deadly situation is imminent.

He's plenty far up on the force continuum. There's no reason to apologize for responding in kind to deadly force.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29730
Thanks Leo, Jason, Steve, Bill for responding. All good points and I agree.

Stay in the car and try to get away.

But a few more points worth discussing:

1. Assume your car is blocked in or stalls out_ and the madman now has you trapped inside, can easily open your doors and stab and beat you with the crowbar…while you are probably still in your seat belt. You have no pistol accessible…

Now what?

2. Leo you wrote
Quote:
The fact he stood in the way of exit forced you to run him over as fear for your life was a reasonable assumption. "I had to" NOT "I wanted to" or "intended to" is a true and believable statement to clarify the statement made to police after the traumatic event in my opinion.


Why don't I like this statement to the police? > …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"? What are the ramifications of it?

3. Steve, Very possibly this is not an EDP person but a vicious madman on a staged mission.
But what I have seen in my work attending and testifying at trials before juries leaves me very skeptical on every logical assumption.

a]If the driver or any of us runs the man down… the sequence would also be on video for juries to watch and for 'dissection' _

b]> Could his family sue. Sure, anyone can sue anyone.<

Yes…but why do I really insist on a and b ?

3. Jason
Quote:
If you're armed with CCW, and you hit them with your car instead, but don't run them over, only knock them down to give time to get away, I think you could easily argue that you took the option least likely to kill the assailant.


Jason is getting closer to something here…hint…our pocketbook…

Keep in mind that I once had a similar case [reversed] where a police officer on foot attempted to stop a madman in a car from taking off from a stopped position at a sidewalk's curb and was run over. I was the investigator for the insurance company of the madman driver after a law suit was filed against him.


4.Bill
Quote:
Every dog (and thug) has a chase instinct. Getting out of that car would be mistake number 1. That in and of itself could be perceived as a threat to him. Running would be mistake number 2.


I agree…stay in the car for as long as it safer to remain there…

…as to any technique against this " malicious, athletic male USING a crowbar " the problem is that we will have to cross hands/touch this guy…overcome his adrenalized state and stop him with some karate blow that we have not yet proven to work on such an individual, but hope will work.

Reason why a weapon should be carried at all times. If not a gun, OC pepper spray is an alternative…spray then run.

5. Bill
Quote:
As it turns out, there is no safe exit. The broken window is the last straw. A potentially deadly situation is imminent.

He's plenty far up on the force continuum. There's no reason to apologize for responding in kind to deadly force.


I agree 100%...but…

…what better words could be used to justify to the police or anyone else as to your having to run him over….and why it is so important to your pocketbook _ even if most likely you would not be found guilty at criminal law…and not negligent in a civil trial?

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Posts: 1149
Location: Massachusetts
Van Canna wrote:
Why don't I like this statement to the police? > …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"? What are the ramifications of it?


I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I have some problems with it.

1. Why voluntarily remove all reasonable doubt that "getting run down" was incidental to fleeing or even just trying to keep the vehicle in motion to make it difficult for him to target? You wanted to keep him in front of the bumpers because he couldn't swing and hit you in the head from there. Unfortunately, there wasn't much room to maneuver.

2. It's very active, even aggressive in the wording: "run him down". I'd rather emphasize that things were happening to me and simply admit that I was very frightened, which is likely to be 100% true. Of course it might be better if I said nothing until I'd had a chance to calm down and discuss the incident with my lawyer. Every time I open my mouth, nothing good can come of it, as I expect the facts of the case will be obvious enough. What's left are intentions and motives.

3. It's too analytical for the moment. Sounds like a legal argument, which I imagine would come across as a little odd.

_________________
Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:44 am
Posts: 131
Wow. I don't even know what to say, other than wow.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17030
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Van Canna wrote:

Why don't I like this statement to the police? > …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"? What are the ramifications of it?

It may seem like semantics, but...

You are trying to stop the threat - and no more. You hit him with the car to stop the threat. You shoot him to stop the threat. You do not use deadly force to kill someone. "Running someone down" implies an intent to kill, which never should be your focus. It invokes images of the prey becoming predator.

The police and the law are looking for reasonableness in a response. You do not want to open the door of doubt in that regard.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 29730
Sorry for leading you guys astray.

I posted
Quote:
Originally posted by Van Canna
Why don't I like this statement to the police? > …" I had to run him down in self defense…I was in fear of my life"? What are the ramifications of it?


Mike I think you misunderstood as by what I wrote I mean exactly what you followed with …to wit
Quote:
Why voluntarily remove all reasonable doubt that "getting run down" was incidental to fleeing or even just trying to keep the vehicle in motion to make it difficult for him to target? You wanted to keep him in front of the bumpers because he couldn't swing and hit you in the head from there. Unfortunately, there wasn't much room to maneuver.


If the driver states "I had to run him down" it can be interpreted as a 'voluntary act' as opposed to an 'accidental one' _

If he were to state "I was in fear of my life…I was in a panic…and I was trying to get away the best I could without hitting him…I tried to get around him but he got in the way…and I accidentally bumped him"

Now why it is so important to create this reasonable doubt?

Mike you got it right as it pertains to the criminal exposure.

First, it might just avoid any criminal charges to start with in a probable cause hearing before a judge.

If a criminal charge does go forward but the driver 'gets off' anyway…take a look at his depleted pocketbook after paying a criminal defense lawyer.
~~

But there is more…

If the driver eventually were to receive a summons and complaint on the civil end of it…he, of course, will tender the defense to his auto liability insurance company.

Now why would the insurance company possibly deny his legal defense? Think about it.

_________________
Van


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group