Budo, Compassion, Loving Protection
and Responsibility
(Extracted from Aikido-L)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002
23:17:49 -0400
From: Peter Boylan
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
The Hat commented:
>
> Howdy,
>
> The Bum opines:
> > Are we being compassionate to an attacker when
> > we don't cause them discomfort, but convince them
> > to leave us alone.
>
The Hat responds:
> Yes.
> Having done that just recently, I had to think about
> what the guy might do after he walked away from me.
> I wondered if I did the right thing, but I didn't
> lose any sleep over it.
The Bum replies:
Actually I had intended this to be comparative with the other
possibilities, but ok. I agree with you in this case.
>
The Hat comments:
> We used to call these "Sky Lab" questions in the
> service. They were called that because there were
> always one or two folks who lived to second guess the
> decisions of everyone who was above them in the chain
> of command.
> The question was "what if a piece of Sky Lab falls
> out of orbit and _____________?"
I, the Bum add:
My point in this case is not to second guess after the fact, but to
prompt consideration of possibilities before hand. It seems to me that
far to little consideration is given to these kinds of questions before
we need to have answers, and when we need to have an answer, there is no
time to consider the question.
>
The Hat points:
> My 1st point is: do the best you can do, using whatever
> code you live by--and try to be flexible, because sh*t
> happens.
> Secondly, if you're gonna contemplate stuff like this,
> have your choices made *before* you are confronted with
> an attacker. You won't have time to ponder when you
> should be busy doing nikkyo or koshinage--or keeping
> your back leg straight.
The Bum agrees:
Exactly, people have to work out their code now, not later, because
there won't be time later.
>
The Hat opined:
> I see no connection to those _potential_ victims, and
> don't feel and obligation to them--since they don't
> actually "exist" at the time I make my decision to be
> compassionate.
The Bum disagrees:
You see, I do find a connection to those potential victims. My training
gives me a power they most likely do not have. What is my
responsibility in possessing this power? Not my legally defined
responsibility, but my responsibility as I see it. Have I fully
considered this? In my case, I've spent a lot of time considering this,
and I've got answers I will use if the potential becomes reality, but I
can't say that I've finished considering it. I don't think I ever will,
and I won't say that my answer will never change.
One of the big reasons I do feel a connection is that I can see my
children being those victims. It's all too common a horror for any
parent. Children have no power to protect themselves from monsters with
human faces. Those with power, I feel, are obligated to do so.
>
The Bum asked:
> > Have we been compassionate to the society that will
> > have to continue to deal with the predator?
>
The Hat answered:
> Probably more compassionate than the cell mate I would
> wind up with in prison for killing my attacker.
> Ahh, nothing like a little self-interest, eh?
>
The Bum did not fully concur:
I think you are using too broad a brush here. Every use of power that
goes beyond protecting the recipient from harm does not result in a dead
attacker. The question I feel we each have to ask about this is "What
do I feel worth taking the risk of going to prison to prevent?"
The Bum previously pontificated:
> > Learning budo should be a frightening activity.
> > Not because we could get hurt doing it, but because
> > by doing so we acquire the power to hurt.
>
The Hat disagrees:
> Sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't smell too
> good to me. Some folks were/are put together pretty
> well upstairs before they found martial arts. Gainingb
> power, skills, confidence, and mind-body coordination
> isn't necessarily a scary process for everyone.
>
The Bum disagrees with The Hat:
It's not the process that I find frightening. It's the potential that I
have acquired. My office co-workers treat me quite carefully. Now, I
don't think I've ever given them any indication that I could be
dangerous, but they know what my favorite recreational activities are,
and I do train Shinto Muso Ryu in the parking lot so...
Both I and my co-workers are quite aware of my potential. It's that
potential that I find both frightening and humbling.
The Bum and The Hat commiserated about how long it takes for a decent
movie to get made:
> > Spider-man opened over the weekend.
>
> Yeah, and I've only waited like 20-odd years for them
> to make the friggin' movie!!!
Yeah, but I'm glad they took their time. I'd hate to see them do the
same job on Spidey The Movie that they did on Spidey The Live Action TV
Show back in the 70s & 80s.
>
The Bum Quoted Stan Lee:
> > "With great power, comes great responsibility."
The Hat Commented:
> Which, is something one should learn from one's
> parents/family. I don't think you have to be able
> to scale buildings, shoot webs, or be budo bad-ass
> to learn--or appreciate--the lesson.
>
The Bum Comments:
I'd say that is one huge "should." There are lots of things I think
everyone should learn at home. As someone who has taught both junior
and senior high school in recent years, I can assure you that very
little of what you and I think people should be learning at home is
being learned there. I won't comment on what is being learned and
where.
I'll agree that you shouldn't have to be a budo bad-ass to learn this.
But if you are someone who trains in budo, I think you do have to learn
it. What I'm afraid is that very few people are exposed to this idea in
their training. Kano Shihan felt that training should be a combination
of technique practice, kata practice, randori, and lecture/question
session. The last he felt was necessary to instill proper morality into
budo students. I think he was right, and I worry that this part of
training is left to the student to devise. Those who stumble across our
humble list will get an earful. Otherwise they are at the mercy of
whatever they find on the web or in the book store. They might not know
that Scott Shaw is, well, Scott Shaw.
The Bum said:
> > It's a wonderful framing of a primal moral
> > dilemna; When to exercise our power, and when
> > not to?"
> > Together with the questions of how to exercise
> > that power..., there is enough to keep me awake
> > many evenings.
>
The Hat replied
> Sorry, I've got better things to think about--and
> a much more pressing need for sleep.
> Thanks to my folks, my "code" is in place, and
> thanks to Aikido I have lightened up a bit over the
> years. I'll do what I think is right, and if that
> turns out to be a bad decision, I'll have to live
> with it.
> Or maybe not(!).
The Bum Replies:
Jon, you are pretty lucky, your family made sure you learned these
lessons and faced these questions. I don't doubt that your military
experience also forced you to face these questions. Most people don't
get this sort of questioning anywhere in their lives. Once you reach
the level of teaching, I think it is one's responsibility to put these
questions before our students. Those who have already dealt with this
will not likely be upset by hearing it again, and those who have not
faced these ideas will be better for it.
>
The Bum asked:
> > Is is more compassionate to our attacker to not
> > injure him? Is it more compassionate to his
> > future victims to injure him?
> > Who take precedence?
>
The Hat answered:
> That's for you to decide.
> And you, and you over there, and you....
>
Exactly. I just want people to start working on their answer before it
comes up on the exam.
Peter "the Budo Bum tries to bring a little moral confusion into the
life of everyone he meets" Boylan
--
Peter Boylan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 10:28:54 +0200
From: "James R. Acker"
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion,
loving protection and responsibility Was : Re: Painless nikkyo
(was Re: Unwritten contract)
From: "Peter Boylan"
> When I think about budo, compassion and concepts like
> "loving protection" and "mutual benefit and welfare" I
> wonder about the boundaries. Are we being
> compassionate to an attacker when we don't cause them
> discomfort, but convince them to leave us alone. What
> if the predator is convinced to stop bothering us, and
> goes in search of easier prey? Have we been
> compassionate to the predator's future victims? Have
> we been compassionate to the society that will have to
> continue to deal with the predator?
Since you "ask" these things...here is one answer. It is too difficult for us to
know outcomes in just about anything. The best intentions often go awry. When
someone talks about meting out punishment to an attacker in order to "protect
society" I think we are getting in dangerous (vigalante) waters.
I would be more comfortable with someone saying "I might beat the hell out of
the attacker out of pure fear and adrenaline". I know the result "might" be the
same but when people talk about meting out punishment for " a good cause" it
really has the potential to become something else...something pretty evil.
One could just as well argue that "loving protection", which I take to mean no
permanent damage, has as good a chance of making the attacker wary of attacking
ANYONE else. Even though I have never been someone who attacked blindly, I gotta
say when I took karate and realized how incredibly powerful and potentially
deadly my short, slight, small sensei (brown belt at the time) was...and
realized how easily he could beat up 5 of me all attacking at once....let's just
say it dampened my automatic evaluation system for life....you know when a
"situation" is developing and one get's the "he shouldn't be any trouble for me"
ideas in their head...well after that I NEVER assume even if a person is small
and seemingly harmless that they really are.
In any case, the idea is loathsome to me personally that one will "punish" an
attacker "for the good of society". It reminds me of people that NEVER give any
money to homeless because "you know...they really often make more than you or I
and have cars...it's all a scam". I mean, be honest, if you don't want to give
then fine...don't. Or if, like me, you give when you feel like it or when it
seems right, and don't feel guilty when you don't give...
But when I give, I also sometimes have offered to buy a hot dog for the person,
but usually you can't worry about if they are going to buy drugs or booze with
the money.
There always is a chance of mitigating circumstances also....or
misunderstanding.
Here in Oslo, before I took aikido actually, when I was new here I was walking
with a co-worker by the pier area. It was evening and we'd just eaten dinner.
There was LOTS of foot traffic on the streets we were walking...as I passed a
cross street and glanced down it I saw a girl "hunkered down" on her haunches
sort of by a parking meter. I saw a young guy right next to her and as I looked
he took a HUGE vicious kick right to her stomach. She was crying already prior
to this. I immidiately saw that no one was doing anything and I
suddenly...without warning...had my fathers voice. (weird how that works) and I
yelled "HEY!" as I walked towards the guy. This happened so fast I couldn't sto
myself. As I cam towards him he rushed towards me with a pretty scary look in
his eye...it really looked like he wanted to go at it...I just wanted to stop
him from kicking that girl some more. I presented my side (as I instinctively do
when attacked) and held up my hands in a placating, yet re!
ady for defense, manner.
I tried in VERY bad norwegian (I hadn't really learned it yet) to ask what he
was doing...quickly realized I was not getting through and switched to english.
This probably helped as he was a bit drunk and I think it both confused him that
he had to think in english and made him stop for a second....he asked me if I
wanted to fight and I replied "not really no...but I can't simply stand by
while you beat up that girl" and he looked suddenly releived a little. He
started to explain...a little drunkenly "Well....I tell you. I am VERY drunk,
and me and my girlfriend are fighting and I cannot kick her so I kick her bag
(purse)" and "Is THAT ALL RIGHT WITH YOU??!!".
I looked again and realized his girlfriend was very drunk too, and she was
crying because they were arguing and nothing more, and that he had in fact
kicked her purse which from my angle previously did make it look like he kicked
her. I was actually really impressed with the person being that drunk and
wanting to be violent but keeping in limits, and not hurting his girlfriend and
actuall not immidiately attacking me either.
If he perceived me as an attacker and felt he ought to stop me "for the good of
society" or if I hadn't tried to talk to him but instead seen my mission as
"teaching this guy a lesson" then this happy ending wouldn't have happened. If I
had in my minds eye, the next little old lady this scum was going to kick, then
I might have gone WAY too far.
Or think about other possibilities that don't become a problem if you could use
aikido well enough to subdue without permanent damage....A person could attack
you out on the street because you matched a description of someone that attacked
their friend just now....you both could end up beating the crap out of each
other "for the good of society" because you view this person as an attacker of
people minding their own buisiness, and he views you as a preadator that needs
to learn a lesson.
There are just too many coincidences, or other reasons, or mistaken assumptions
in life to have such thoughts about teaching a lesson. You may do it because you
simply are angry at being attacked...that is human..but the high-minded good of
society has been WAY too often an excuse to let lose the sadistic or evil sides
of peoples nature...all with a convenient excuse.
Jim
Just my opinions.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 07:57:49 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: Budo,
Compassion,loving protection and responsibility Was : Re: Painless
nikkyo(was Re: Unwritten contract)
"James R. Acker" wrote:
> Here in Oslo, ...when I was new here... walking...as I passed a
> cross street ... I saw a girl "hunkered down" on her haunches sort
> of by a parking meter. I saw a young guy right next to her and as
> I looked he took a HUGE vicious kick right to her stomach. She was
> crying already prior to this... I yelled "HEY!" as I walked
> towards the guy. ..I just wanted to stop him from kicking that
> girl some more. I presented my side (as I instinctively do when
> attacked) and held up my hands in a placating, yet re!
> ady for defense, manner.
>
> He started to explain...a little drunkenly "Well....I tell you. I
> am VERY drunk, and me and my girlfriend are fighting and I cannot
> kick her so I kick her bag (purse)
Well, if the bag (purse) was big enough to kick...
If the guy was a decent sort and just momentarily frustrated,
that would be one thing. (Just don't break the glasses.)
If he wasn't, well,...if he actually was a predator trying to
cover that over by saying he was "only" kicking an "object"
instead of a real person, he should be careful. Some women
carry a lot. He could stub a toe.
Al
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:23:08 -0400
From: Jon C Strauss
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Howdy,
My Dialogue with the Bum continues:
> My point in this case is not to second guess after
> the fact, but to prompt consideration of possibilities
> before hand.
Point taken & agreed with.
> You see, I do find a connection to those potential
> victims. My training gives me a power they most
> likely do not have.
I'm sure that works well for you.
I feel that I can save only so many people, and I tend
to concentrate on those who are close to me. And if I
can "save" the attacker as well....
> I've got answers I will use if the potential becomes
> reality, but I can't say that I've finished considering
> it. I don't think I ever will, and I won't say that my
> answer will never change.
I dunno.
Once I have a kid or two, I can't see me thinking that
severely injuring an attacker would be a great idea.
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see, huh?
> One of the big reasons I do feel a connection is that
> I can see my children being those victims. It's all
> too common a horror for any parent. Children have no
> power to protect themselves from monsters with human
> faces. Those with power, I feel, are obligated to do
> so.
My perspective is that one is more likely to get in
trouble with the law for using such power, AND earn
the animosity of the attacker(s) and his/her family,
friends or partners. And that won't put you or your
children in such a good place.
Again, I am not advocating that one shouldn't do
anything. Go ahead and use your "power," just try to
use it compassionately. Think long-range benevolence
and not short-term heroics.
That's my goal, anyway.
> Every use of power that goes beyond protecting the
> recipient from harm does not result in a dead
> attacker.
True enough.
> The question I feel we each have to ask about this is
> "What do I feel worth taking the risk of going to
> prison to prevent?"
Take a step back and ask "How can I prevent said
atrocity in a way that will most benefit those involved
(directly & indirectly)?"
> It's not the process that I find frightening. It's
> the potential that I have acquired. My office
> co-workers treat me quite carefully. Now, I don't
> think I've ever given them any indication that I could
> be dangerous,
Nooo, not *you*.
> but they know what my favorite recreational activities
> are, and I do train Shinto Muso Ryu in the parking lot
> so...
Do you keep a shinken on the wall in your office?
Do you wear a T-shirt that says: "Guns don't Kill
People, Koryu Does!"
Do you walk around in some extreme zanshin mode that
lets people know they shouldn't mess with you?
Do you often grab an extension cord and practice
hojojutsu on random passers-by?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then
it's your fault how people perceive you.
:-)
Again, I just don't buy into this. People are going to
react to what you do and what you say. Fortunately, my
co-workers make a distinction between my martial arts
training and my ability to be very direct when
communicating with them. I guess the fact that I can be
quite a goofball helps out a lot in this regard. I also
tend to talk about Kiatsu, Ki breathing & meditation,
and mind-body coordination when I'm asked about martial
arts training. That goes a long way toward alleviating
any potential fear.
Yes, there are some folks who make some pretty dark
assumptions about those who study martial arts, but you
can either work to confirm or dispel them. I practice
new SMR kata right here in the office. On the *rare*
occasion when I am asked if I am dangerous, I give one
of two answers:
A. "Only to myself."
B. "You bet! IF we were in Japan 350 years ago and
you were a very slow, drunk and unskilled samurai!
> Both I and my co-workers are quite aware of my
> potential. It's that potential that I find both
> frightening and humbling.
I guess I can understand, but to me it sounds like you
should take a little more ownership of that potential.
Then it wouldn't worry you so much.
Of course there's always sensitivity training....
;-)
> The Bum and The Hat commiserated about how long it
> takes for a decent movie to get made:
Amen!
"Daredevil" and "The Hulk" are in the works, along with
"The Fantastic Four" and even "Ghostrider." The next few
years could be a lot of fun for comic book fans.
> The Bum Quoted Stan Lee:
> "With great power, comes great responsibility."
My point is that some folks already know that.
If I'm in the extreme minority in this case, then hooray
for me.
> Kano Shihan felt that training should be a combination
> of...lecture/question session. The last he felt was
> necessary to instill proper morality into budo students.
Yikes!
I've met some teachers who have no business teaching
ANYONE about morality (hmmm, should I blame their
parents or their teachers?).
> Otherwise they are at the mercy of whatever they find
> on the web or in the book store. They might not know
> that Scott Shaw is, well, Scott Shaw.
LOL!
For those of you who don't know and want a good chuckle,
visit:
http://www.scottshaw.com/
> Jon, you are pretty lucky,
Don't I know it.
> your family made sure you learned these lessons and faced
> these questions. I don't doubt that your military
> experience also forced you to face these questions. Most
> people don't get this sort of questioning anywhere in
> their lives.
Again, I dunno.
I give most people a little more credit than that.
But then, I'm not a school teacher. I know you folks often
see some fairly disturbing stuff. The adults I deal with
in class are put together pretty well, though.
> Once you reach the level of teaching, I think it is one's
> responsibility to put these questions before our students.
I don't mind discussing it informally over root beer-waza
after class. It's just not something I feel comfortable
_teaching_....or preaching.
Luckily, one has to stick around quite a while to get any
good at Aikido. Those who lack the responsibility to use
their power "only for good" usually lack the commitment to
stick around long enough to get good at it.
Peace,
Jon "looking forward to doing more Jodo with Peter at the
next Aikido-L Seminar" Strauss
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 11:34:24 +0200
From: "James R. Acker"
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
From: "Lorien Lowe"
> I agree, and you offer some very good points...but.
>
> But my first, knee-jerk reaciton was that a woman who
> fits the description of the murdered ones should get a
> concealed gun, follow the patterns, and shoot the
> first bastard who tries to pull her into a car. And
> repeat until the murders stop.
>
> -Lorien
>
Well, that is kind of different form the general idea we were talking about.
First it is unique because it is a pattern in a specific area with one
perpatrator...not just a general type of problem, and mainly the statement that
"the police aren't interested". On the other hand, ideally, a woman that could
subdue without hurting "the first bastard that tries to pull her into a car"
might be better off...it could be the police pulling her in, or she could be
mistaken, etc. which could get her sitting in jail for murder if her judgement
was wrong.
That is the kind of problem that happens with vigilanteism (how DO you spell
that?). I mean, even police aren't supposed to mete out justice, they are
supposed to arrest and detain a suspect until a judge and jury can determine the
facts. Even police, with cooler heads and investigative machinery, have made
mistakes and charged innocent people....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 06:06:53 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
"Lorien Lowe" wrote:
> > But my first, knee-jerk reaciton was that a woman who
> > fits the description of the murdered ones should get a
> > concealed gun, follow the patterns, and shoot the
> > first bastard who tries to pull her into a car.
While I agree that being armed in our society today is adviseable
in many circumstances, I do not think you can depend on firepower
alone to protect you in such a situation (and this would go for a
man, too). Anything can be used as a weapon of defense--from
words to hands to a pencil (properly applied), and a wise person
should have some familiarity with how to use items other than a
gun, if needed, to keep themselves safe.
The kid in me that grew up in New York says you avoid putting
yourself in any situation that has this sort of potential. You
follow that very sophisticated self-preservation device that
nature has provided for aeons: your gut. If it feels even a
little wierd about a situation, pay attention.
That means you don't get close enough to a car to be pulled into
it. It means that your demeanour is such that no fool would even
think of pulling you into a car if he had any brains at all. And
for those who don't...it means you are prepared to respond
appropriately (up to deadly force, if necessary), once you have
what, under the law, constitutes a threat to your life. An
attacker can say, "You're gonna die,"... but until he moves
toward you with a weapon (or is so obviously physically superior
to you that sheer bulk or strength would make you fear for your
life) while saying those words, you don't have a defense.
Self-preservation requires that you be mentally prepared, at all
times, to respond appropriately to any danger and survive (or, in
the cases Lorien cited, take your attacker out with you if you
can't).
We have all found ourselves in unexpected, unpredicable
situations involving the potential for danger to us or loved
ones. How we deal with that is at the heart of aikido--and
budo. We live under the sword every day, whether we choose to be
conscious or oblivious of it. What can I compare this
to?...rookie firefighter training. The first time trainees are
on the end of a line, facing a wall of flame and heat, they know
that that fire has the potential to destroy them, and others.
It's an extremely dangerous and unpredictable enemy not to be
underestimated, but they do what they have to do to contain it,
and eventually stop it.
We do that in aikido, too.
Al
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:12:31 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 11:34 AM 5/9/02 +0200, James R. Acker wrote:
>That is the kind of problem that happens with vigilanteism (how DO you
spell that?). I mean, even police aren't supposed to mete out justice, they
are supposed to arrest and detain a suspect until a judge and jury can
determine the facts. Even police, with cooler heads and investigative
machinery, have made mistakes and charged innocent people....
Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things. What the
police do is different than either of them.
-- Mike "the victim of an attack is uusually not in doubt as to who the
attacker is" Bartman --
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose that freedom,
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more,
it will lose those too."
--
Somerset Maugham
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:49:52 +0200
From: "James R. Acker"
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
From: "Mike Bartman"
> Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things. What the
> police do is different than either of them.
>
> -- Mike "the victim of an attack is usually not in doubt as to who the
> attacker is" Bartman --
All true Mike, and what we are talking about IS self defense, which should
remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it would if the victim
took it upon themself to "rid society of this menace" instead of simply defend
themselves).
In the case of self-defense, I believe the law is pretty clear on this as well.
If you were assaulted and really wailed on the person, going way past simply
defending yourself you can be tried for it.
I don't know if it has happened, but it is even possible that someone trained in
aikido for many years would be held to a different standard ?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 10:23:23 -0500
From: "Nevalainen, Eric"
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
>In the case of self-defense, I believe the law is pretty clear on this
as well.
We had a series of articles in our dojo newsletter on just this subject
last year. I believe that there is only one installment on-line, but
FWIW:
http://www.oocities.org/shuharikan/augp7.html
If anyone's interested, I can see if I can get my hands on all of the
articles thus far.
From: James R. Acker [mailto:jacker@ONLINE.NO]
From: "Mike Bartman"
> Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things.
> What the police do is different than either of them.
>
> -- Mike "the victim of an attack is usually not in doubt as to who the
> attacker is" Bartman --
All true Mike, and what we are talking about IS self defense, which
should remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it
would if the victim took it upon themself to "rid society of this
menace" instead of simply defend themselves).
In the case of self-defense, I believe the law is pretty clear on this
as well. If you were assaulted and really wailed on the person, going
way past simply defending yourself you can be tried for it.
I don't know if it has happened, but it is even possible that someone
trained in aikido for many years would be held to a different standard ?
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:11:27 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 05:49 PM 5/9/02 +0200, James R. Acker wrote:
>From: "Mike Bartman"
>> Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things. What the
>> police do is different than either of them.
>All true Mike, and what we are talking about IS self defense, which should
remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it would if the
victim took it upon themself to "rid society of this menace" instead of
simply defend themselves).
The two are not necessarily opposed. Given the "revenge motive" it's
entirely possible that they are identical.
>In the case of self-defense, I believe the law is pretty clear on this as
well. If you were assaulted and really wailed on the person, going way past
simply defending yourself you can be tried for it.
You are legally allowed (here) to use whatever force is necessary to stop
the attack, and no more. How much is necessary is sometimes a matter of
judgement, and reasonable people can differ on that.
Certainly if you beat your attacker unconscious, then go get your car and
run over him a few times, that's going to be seen as "excessive force" by
many people, but certainly not by all, depending on what sort of attack it
was. There have also been cases where a person was attacked in their own
home by an armed burglar, used deadly force, and were found guilty of using
too much force...though, thankfully, that sort of legal idiocy is rare.
My opinion is that if you decide to prey on members of society that it's a
lot like swimming in the ocean: you have chosen to enter the food chain,
and not necessarily at the top (apologies to Jacques-Yves Cousteau). I.e.
you are taking a chance, and if it goes wrong, tough.
Society (for instance, me) has no interest in providing any protection to
those who would harm it. The law isn't there to make sure that slime has
an easier time of it...it's there to make sure that slime has a very hard
time of it, but that honest folks don't get mistaken for slime. When
someone is actively engaged in being slime and you are the target, it's not
difficult to figure out that the person is not worthy of legal
protection...but those who aren't there may be interested in determining
that for themselves too...to make sure that *you* aren't slime.
>I don't know if it has happened, but it is even possible that someone
trained in Aikido for many years would be held to a different standard ?
Same standard, different expectations...perhaps.
-- Mike "that would be the time to sttress that it's a lot like dancing..."
Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 11:54:05 -0500
From: Peter Claussen
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
>> From: "Mike Bartman"
>>>
>>> Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things.
>>> What the
>>> police do is different than either of them.
>
>> All true Mike, and what we are talking about IS self defense, which
>> should
> remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it would if
> the
> victim took it upon themself to "rid society of this menace" instead of
> simply defend themselves).
>
> The two are not necessarily opposed. Given the "revenge motive" it's
> entirely possible that they are identical.
>
Mike, do I read this right? Are you saying "Vigilantism and self-defense
are
: two completely different things"
: are not necessary opposed; it's possible they are identical"?
Peter Claussen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 11:23:30 -0700
From: Peter Boylan
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
--- "James R. Acker" wrote:> >
> All true Mike, and what we are talking about IS self
> defense, which should remain self-defense and not
> turn into vigilanteism (which it would if the victim
> took it upon themself to "rid society of this
> menace" instead of simply defend themselves).
>
What I was hoping to get people to consider was not
the immediate jump from protecting an attacker from
harm straight to killing the attacker, but to consider
all the steps along the way. Is it best to protect?
To bruise? To hyper-extend? To break? To maim? To
cripple? And finally, as just one option among a very
many, to kill?
Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan
=====
Peter Boylan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 14:18:17 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 11:54 AM 5/9/02 -0500, Peter Claussen wrote:
>On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 11:11 AM, Mike Bartman wrote:
>> At 05:49 PM 5/9/02 +0200, James R. Acker wrote:
>>> From: "Mike Bartman"
>>>>
>>>> Vigilantism and self-defense are two completely different things.
>>>> What the police do is different than either of them.
<snip>
>> remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it would if the
>> victim took it upon themself to "rid society of this menace" instead of
>> simply defend themselves).
>>
>> The two are not necessarily opposed. Given the "revenge motive" it's
>> entirely possible that they are identical.
>
>Mike, do I read this right? Are you saying "Vigilantism and self-defense
>are
> : two completely different things"
> : are not necessary opposed; it's possible they are identical"
No, you read it wrong.
Vigilantism and self-defence are two completely different things. One is
being law enforcement and judgement/sentencing combined, the other is
protecting yourself from attack.
The two things that might at times be identical are self-defense and taking
"it upon themself to 'rid society of this menace'", rather than just using
enough force to stop the *immediate* attack.
If slimeball A attacks me, and I defend myself successfully and legally,
and subdue him using legal force, turn him over to authorities, and he's
tried, sentenced and jailed for his acts, then I've defended myself against
the immediate threat and been legally justified at all points in the process.
However, I may actually, with some forms of slimeball, have *increased* the
threat against me in the long run. He gets out of prison, tracks me down,
and kills me, for example. It has happened, so it's not just a
hypothetical possibility. In a way it's not entirely different from
running down a dead-end dark alley to escape an attacker with a knife on
the street. You've defended against the *immediate* threat of getting
stabbed by running, but in the long run you've put yourself in a much worse
situation by your tactics in doing so. You now have nowhere to run to, are
still facing the attacker, but now the circumstances are even more in his
favor as you aren't as likely to be noticed by someone who could come to
your aid. Dealing with the problem in a way that ends the immediate, as
well as future, threat would seem to be a better form of self-defense in at
least those cases where you are dealing with someone who would follow up
later like that.
That's what I was referring to with the "possibly identical" comment.
-- Mike "not overly concerned with prreventing the loss of proven threats"
Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:36:13 -0700
From: A J Garcia
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Mike Bartman wrote:
> >> Given the "revenge motive" it's entirely possible.., they are identical.
If you are certain the person would take revenge.
If you are sutre you're dealing with certain pathologies. Which
with most societal punks, you aren't. They'll just look for
another easy victim.
At least that's the theory, anyway.
> The two things that might at times be identical are self-defense and taking
> "it upon themself to 'rid society of this menace'", rather than just using
> enough force to stop the *immediate* attack.
If you are unable to avoid the attack in the first place, do you
mean?
> However, I may actually, with some forms of slimeball, have
> *increased* the threat against me in the long run.
But unless said slimeball identified that possibility up front
(which those kind seldom do), how would you know? Someone who
just walks unknowingly into a baaaad situation may not pick up on
stuff fast enough to realize the potential that exists for (to
use that euphimistic government-talk) "collateral damage".
> In a way it's not entirely different from
> running down a dead-end dark alley to escape an attacker with a knife on
> the street. You've defended against the *immediate* threat of getting
> stabbed by running, but in the long run you've put yourself in a much worse
> situation by your tactics in doing so.
>/ You now have nowhere to run to,are
> still facing the attacker, but now the circumstances are even more in his
> favor as you aren't as likely to be noticed by someone who could come to
> your aid. Dealing with the problem in a way that ends the immediate, as
> well as future, threat would seem to be a better form of self-defense in at
> least those cases where you are dealing with someone who would follow up
> later like that.
But what are the chances, really? Are you going to kill every
person who corners you in an alley just on the off chance he's a
psychopath? That's what's good about study
aikido--you can attempt to avoid getting in situations by
practicing awareness, and, if you do end up in them, you can do
your best to find an effective outcome that's best for all
concerned.
There's always the possibility there isn't one.
In which caser, you may have to be pre[pared for sutemi. Or
worse.
But that's not usually a choice you deal with.
> That's what I was referring to with the "possibly identical" comment.
>
> -- Mike "not overly concerned with preventing the loss of proven threats"
When you know they are threats.
Al
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:24:10 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 12:36 PM 5/9/02 -0700, A J Garcia wrote:
>Mike Bartman wrote:
>
>> >> Given the "revenge motive" it's entirely possible.., they are identical.
>
>If you are certain the person would take revenge.
No "if" about it. I said, "possible", and that's certain enough.
It isn't going to be easy in practice to know whether that's the situation
you are in. I'd say, "err on the side of caution" myself, while keeping in
mind that there are big penalties for being wrong either way. The stakes
are high no matter how you look at it...and it's not going to come up
unless the attacker has done something to make me consider the possibility
in his case. Very foolish of him, right?
>If you are sutre you're dealing with certain pathologies. Which
>with most societal punks, you aren't. They'll just look for
>another easy victim. At least that's the theory, anyway.
It's true enough most of the time. There aren't *that* many cases where
someone gets out of prison and goes after the victim who put them there.
It happens, but it's not the norm.
>> The two things that might at times be identical are self-defense and taking
>> "it upon themself to 'rid society of this menace'", rather than just using
>> enough force to stop the *immediate* attack.
>
>If you are unable to avoid the attack in the first place, do you
>mean?
Depends what you mean by "avoid the attack". If you mean not wandering
down dark alleys known to be havens of violent criminals in the middle of
the night, Ok...though I would wonder why the police don't take a peek down
there and clear them out if it's so well known. If you mean never going
out of my home after dark, making my house look like a prison with bars on
every opening, and reacting with suspicion every time a stranger comes near
me, no way. I won't go looking for problems, but I'm not going to live
like I'm in a war zone my whole life either. If going about my normal life
is going to result in an attack, that's what's going to happen and I'll do
the best I can.
Luckily for me, my normal life seems to be relatively safe. The main
dangers are lousy drivers, lack of exercise and the wrong diet, not violent
criminals.
>> However, I may actually, with some forms of slimeball, have
>> *increased* the threat against me in the long run.
>
>But unless said slimeball identified that possibility up front
>(which those kind seldom do), how would you know?
How do you know anything? You use the evidence you have, combine it with
what you've learned in the past from your own and others' experiences, and
you take your best guess.
How do you know that there's time to cross the street before that bus gets
to where you are? Same way. Sure it *could* have a huge rocket motor in
the back that will accelerate it faster than you expect, but that's not
very likely, so you cross. If you are wrong, you are dead. Guessing well
is something we've been evolved for, and most of us aren't too bad at it.
When there's real doubt, we take the safest choice...and wait for the buss
to go past first, or just defend in a way that will remove the attacker
permanently, but not get us in trouble with the law.
A cop (Capitol Police) I once knew told me a story about self-defense once.
No idea if it's true, but I suspect not...but it's still funny:
A young officer, very short time on the force, was involved in a fatal
shooting. Backup arrived, secured the area, and the officer explained to
the arriving cops what had happened. The dead man had a knife, and
attacked with it when confronted by the young officer. He had to shoot to
keep from being stabbed. Justified, right? Sure...except that one of the
more experienced cops looked at the body, and the area around it (mostly
open concrete sidewalk) and noted that there didn't appear to be a weapon
lying there anywhere. He told the kid he was lucky, did good, and not to
worry, then wandered over by the body and dropped a switchblade he carried
"just in case", and nudged it under the body with the toe of his shoe, then
wandered away to help secure the crime scene until the investigating folks
could arrive.
When the investigation team arrived, they took statements, pictures of the
area, the body, etc., then told the ambulance folks they could remove the
body to the morgue. When the medics turned the body over, there were half
a dozen knives of various sorts under it...
>> your aid. Dealing with the problem in a way that ends the immediate, as
>> well as future, threat would seem to be a better form of self-defense in at
>> least those cases where you are dealing with someone who would follow up
>> later like that.
>
>But what are the chances, really?
Depends who you are dealing with, where it's happening, and what your
future plans are. Lots of variables. Over all? Not real high. Not zero
either.
>Are you going to kill every
>person who corners you in an alley just on the off chance he's a
>psychopath?
Of course not.
>That's what's good about study
>aikido--you can attempt to avoid getting in situations by
>practicing awareness, and, if you do end up in them, you can do
>your best to find an effective outcome that's best for all
>concerned.
Yep. You can also use what's in the area, just in case. A couple of weeks
ago I met a nice lady down in Bethesda, and we ended up chatting until the
bars closed. I walked with her to her car, and we chatted a bit more, then
she headed home and I walked to my car, a couple of blocks away. It's not
a "bad" area at all, but it was about 1am, and there weren't many other
folks out, and I had to go a couple of blocks to the second level of a
nearly empty parking garage to get my car. I noted a cop parked in an
alley, who was standing near his car chatting with someone (didn't appear
to be "official" at all). As I walked past I said, "Hello." and nodded,
and he responded with "Good evening," and nodded back. No big thing, but
he was now aware that I was around, saw which way I was headed, so if
anything happened in the next couple of minutes as I was making my way to
my car, he'd be better aware of the possible situation, and who was who
when he got there. Chances of anything going wrong were remote in that
area, but they weren't zero and picking a path that took my past the cop
like that was just as easy as picking any other, so why not?
>> -- Mike "not overly concerned with preventing the loss of proven threats"
>
>When you know they are threats.
They tend to self-identify by attacking. Non-threats don't do that sort of
thing.
-- Mike "they get the first move that way" Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:28:44 -0400
From: Jake Jacobe
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Mike Bartman wrote:
>However, I may actually, with some forms of slimeball, have *increased* the
>threat against me in the long run. He gets out of prison, tracks me down,
>and kills me, for example. It has happened, so it's not just a
>hypothetical possibility.
This reads as though you went easy on someone, he got out of prison,
tracked you down and killed you, Mike. I suspect, though, that is not what
you meant. ;-)
As much as it might seem more logical to avoid the later threat by dealing
with it now, I believe that one can only legally deal with what is
happening now ... not what you suspect might happen later.
Jake
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:33:51 -0700
From: Cindy
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Peter Boylan writes:
>What I was hoping to get people to consider was not
>the immediate jump from protecting an attacker from
>harm straight to killing the attacker, but to consider
>all the steps along the way. Is it best to protect?
>To bruise? To hyper-extend? To break? To maim? To
>cripple? And finally, as just one option among a very
>many, to kill?
Seems to me this varies so much that you could easily have a single
situation in which, if you put different people into it, they'd each
have a perfectly valid best approach in dealing with it. For example,
a slightly built woman might be best off with something quite
disabling, whereas a larger, stronger man could find simple
immobilizing sufficient. (The irony is, of course, that it's most
likely they would each first consider the other's best approach...)
--Cindy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 16:01:15 -0700
From: Lorien Lowe
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
--- A J Garcia wrote:
> ...you don't get close enough to a car
> to be pulled into it. It means that your
> demeanour is such that no fool would even
> think of pulling you into a car if he had any brains
> at all. ...
The problem in the case I cited is, in large part,
created by the locale: Hundreds of relatively poor
young women working in border maquilladoras, walking
to and from work alone, at all hours of the day, or
waiting to catch busses to work alone, at all hours of
the day.
Add to that a cultural requirment that women not be
too agressive - worse in Mexico than in the US - and
you have a virtually unlimited supply of perfect
victims. Then you throw in a corrupt political
system. Hell, you might be in just as much danger if
it -is- really the police trying to grab you.
Of course, a long-term solution would be to set up a
bunch of dojos and give free training to the women, to
build up just the skills that you cited.
-Lorien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:53:55 -0500
From: Peter Claussen
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 01:18 PM, Mike Bartman wrote:
> At 11:54 AM 5/9/02 -0500, Peter Claussen wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 11:11 AM, Mike Bartman wrote:
>>> At 05:49 PM 5/9/02 +0200, James R. Acker wrote:
>>> remain self-defense and not turn into vigilanteism (which it would if
>>> the
>>> victim took it upon themself to "rid society of this menace" instead
>>> of
>>> simply defend themselves).
>>>
>
> Vigilantism and self-defence are two completely different things. One
> is
> being law enforcement and judgement/sentencing combined, the other is
> protecting yourself from attack.
>
> The two things that might at times be identical are self-defense and
> taking
> "it upon themself to 'rid society of this menace'", rather than just
> using
> enough force to stop the *immediate* attack.
>
> If slimeball A attacks me, and I defend myself successfully and legally,
> and subdue him using legal force, turn him over to authorities, and he's
> tried, sentenced and jailed for his acts, then I've defended myself
> against
> the immediate threat and been legally justified at all points in the
> process.
>
This is because while you as an individual are allowed to defend, only
society
can punish. If you take it upon yourself to punish you have become a
vigilante.
Note the events you list after "subdue" - those are the actions reserved
by the authorities. If you continue against your attacker after "subdue"
you've usurped the authority of the authorities; this by definition is
vigilantism.
> However, I may actually, with some forms of slimeball, have *increased*
> the
> threat against me in the long run. He gets out of prison, tracks me
> down,
> and kills me, for example.
May, but that's a pretty long stretch. Granted, if he intended to only
rob you
in the first attack and kill you in the second then you *may* have
increased
your danger level; but if he'd intended to kill you in the first place
you haven't
increased the threat at all.
As you say, self-defense is protecting yourself against an attack, not a
threat.
In our society, only judges and juries are empowered to determine if a
person
is a sufficient threat to warrant removal from society. For an
individual to do so is
vigilantism.
Peter Claussen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:11:44 -0400
From: "Drysdale, Alan E."
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Mike said:
>> and subdue him using legal force, turn him over to authorities, and he's
>> tried, sentenced and jailed for his acts, then I've defended myself
<snip>
Peter said:
>Note the events you list after "subdue" - those are the actions reserved
>by the authorities. If you continue against your attacker after "subdue"
>you've usurped the authority of the authorities; this by definition is
>vigilantism.
I'm not even sure that it is legal to "subdue" somebody. Defend yourself,
yes, with lethal force if justified. But is subduing somebody defending
yourself? It could be, or it might not be. Case 1: kid goes crazy and
attacks you. You wrap him up in your arms and subdue him to prevent him
harming you. That is probably legal self defense. Case 2: you surprise a
burglar in your home. He sees you and runs for the back door. You grab
him, tie him up and call the cops. Case 3: guy attacks you on the street
and you blow off his attempts to punch you out, then when he tries to leave,
you grab him and hold him for the cops. Case 4: you arrive home and
somebody trespassing on your land takes off running. You run after him and
grab him. Are these actions legal? They might be, through citizens power
of arrest, but I really don't know. I suspect if there is reasonable
grounds for arrest you are probably okay, but I suspect you could get
arrested yourself for wrongful imprisonment or something like that,
especially if you don't have good evidence like a security camera showing
why you did what you did.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:21:32 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 03:11 PM 5/10/02 -0400, Drysdale, Alan E. wrote:
<4 examples snipped>
>grab him. Are these actions legal? They might be, through citizens power
>of arrest, but I really don't know.
Ask a good local attorney for an opinion if you want good info on this.
The laws do vary a bit from place to place, but in general, if it's a
felony that you witnessed yourself, you can make a "citizen's arrest" and
hold the person, using whatever force is reasonable and necessary (i.e. a
judge would agree with you about it) to do so. That's legal most places.
You can't use "excessive force" any more than the police can. You can be
sued for "false arrest" same as the police can. You can't make arrests for
misdemeanors, only felonies...so make sure you understand the offense's
legal standing.
Assuming that I'm right about the above, some of the examples you gave
would allow you to make a legal arrest, some wouldn't.
>I suspect if there is reasonable
>grounds for arrest you are probably okay, but I suspect you could get
>arrested yourself for wrongful imprisonment or something like that,
>especially if you don't have good evidence like a security camera showing
>why you did what you did.
When you make an arrest you are subject to the same limitations and
problems as the police are when they do it...but you don't have a
government's resources standing behind you to provide lawyers and money for
your defense. I wouldn't do so unless it was *really* clear to me what the
legalities were...or unless letting the "perp" go was just unthinkable from
a moral/ethical standpoint.
-- Mike "as has been pointed out, tryying and executing sentence on him is
right out though" Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:32:15 -0700
From: Cindy
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
Mike Bartman writes:
>You can't use "excessive force" any more than the police can. You can be
>sued for "false arrest" same as the police can. You can't make arrests for
>misdemeanors, only felonies...so make sure you understand the offense's
>legal standing.
The other main difference is that you can only do a citizen's arrest
based on what you yourself saw. You can't do so on the testimony
of someone else, only the police can do that.
--Cindy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:39:49 -0400
From: Mike Bartman
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
At 02:32 PM 5/10/02 -0700, Cindy wrote:
>Mike Bartman writes:
>
> >You can't use "excessive force" any more than the police can. You can be
> >sued for "false arrest" same as the police can. You can't make arrests for
> >misdemeanors, only felonies...so make sure you understand the offense's
> >legal standing.
>
>The other main difference is that you can only do a citizen's arrest
>based on what you yourself saw. You can't do so on the testimony
>of someone else, only the police can do that.
I *did* say that...just not in the part you quoted. From the paragraph
before the one you quoted from:
----------
...but in general, if it's a felony that you witnessed yourself, you can
make a "citizen's arrest" and...
----------
-- Mike "I don't keep all mail, but II do hang onto copies of what I've
said" Bartman --
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 02:01:00 +0200
From: "James R. Acker"
Subject: Re: Budo, Compassion, loving protection and responsibility
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bartman"
> You can't use "excessive force" any more than the police can. You can be
> sued for "false arrest" same as the police can. You can't make arrests for
> misdemeanors, only felonies...so make sure you understand the offense's
> legal standing.
>
I know you qualified this with "check with a local attorney" but I just
wondered....I wonder if powers of arrest actually are a little more lenient for
citizens. I don't know at all, but believe that security guards in department
stores, for one example, have no real more jurisdiction than a citizen. I mean,
if they catch someone stealing (I picked this because I think it is even if not
a felony) something they have the right to hold them until the police arrive.
Here in Norway the local transit authority has a serious problem involving
"sneakers", the people sneaking on the subway here. By law the supreme court
here has said they do NOT have the right to hold people, effectively arresting
them. The result is in a lot of cases people caught without tickets during
control checks, sometimes simply start walking away. The transit police hate
this and have actually broken the law by trying to surround the person and stop
them.
That is pretty weird though. The thought (though wrong I think, the subway is
incredibly negligent in not having gates, or any control getting on the subway.
They have no real ticket system and at a good percentage of stations the
machines are often not working correctly at least when I try and buy a ticket.
Then you get in the quandry if you should go anyway. There are no ticket
machines or conductors on board. It really is a mess) it that okay, if they
catch someone they can refuse to let the person travel for free but have no
right to keep the person from moving on on their own steam, because they are not
further stealing anything when walking they must be allowed to go...also
possibly as you mention, because it is a misdemeanor.
Jim
------------------------------
Last updated on 13 Sep 2002