Power and responsibility

[red5angel]

Saw this on another list I am on, this has come up a lot so I thought I would post here. Sounds about right to me.

The "Hockey Dad" Case

What started as an argument between two proud parents ended up with one boy's dad dead, and the other convicted of involuntary manslaughter. It didn't have to be this way.

Thomas Junta was convicted of beating another man to death after arguing over rough play at his son's hockey practice. A 275-pound truck driver, Junta confronted 160-pound referee Michael Costin when he felt the kids were getting too physical. Costin, according to testimony, responded, "That's hockey." The two men then started exchanging profanities, which soon led to a full-blown fight.

Prosecutors agreed with Junta's account that Costin threw the first punch. But Junta quickly gained the upper hand, pinning Costin to the ground, hitting the smaller man, and slamming his head against the floor. Costin died two days later.

A martial artist has the ability to take the fight beyond the legal
limit, and therefore must assume the responsibility to know not to. Martial Artists Must Know Better

Most martial artists are taught that their increased ability in combat should be used only in self-defense. Thomas Junta's defense argument was just that--he was merely defending himself. And prosecutors agreed that
Costin did strike first. But at what point does self-defense end, and involuntary manslaughter begin?

Martial artists learn an arsenal of techniques to use in combat
situations. Choosing the right ones, especially in a stressful
self-defense situation, isn't always easy. But one tantamount rule must apply--that only enough force needed to stop the situation is used, and nothing more. A martial artist has the ability to take the fight beyond the legal limit, and therefore must assume the responsibility to knownot to.

Training in the force continuum
<http://martialarts.about.com/library/weekly/aa021201a.htm> emphasizes a controlled use of force. The techniques used against a knife-wielding terrorist should be much more severe than those used against your drunken brother-in-law. But while you might be justified in killing the terrorist, you usually aren't justified in killing your brother-in-law,even if he does take a swing at you.

If your opponent does strike first, your martial arts training teaches you to block or avoid the blow. With proper training, you can choose from your repertoire of control moves or judiciously placed strikes to stop your opponent without inflicting fatal damage. Even breaking your opponent's arm with a quickly applied armbar--a rather painful measure--is a preferable alternative.

Just Walk Away

Martial arts training gives you the confidence to walk away from an argument before it escalates into a fight. Knowing that you have the ability to physically handle your opponent means that you can react calmly and with presence, without getting angry.

Anger, which can enhance performance by increasing adrenal levels, clouds judgment. The best martial artists are eerily calm, even when fighting. Anger interferes with selecting the right technique and the execution of that technique.

With Power Comes Responsibility

Martial artists are given the power to hurt others, and this power must be tempered by increased responsibility. The martial arts are well regarded for being great exercise, moving meditation, and a means for increasing self-esteem and confidence. But at their core are techniques for combat. We can't forget that fact.

[norther practitioner]

Responsibility is the key. If you ever have the option, don't kill, walking away is best, but not always aplicable. Article states the obvious, but it does put it in a very coherent manner.

[red5angel]

Exactly, responsibility is the key. there was a thread earlier on lethal ability and how far you would go, I think started by waterdragon? Anyway, In it I said that if it were me, and I lost control of the situtation, I would do anything I had to. I study Martial Arts because I want to be able to control a situation, so I dont have to go too far. In this case, in self defense I would act but once I have succesfully defended myself, then I would walk away.

[norther practitioner]

Well, I study for my health. Which in fact is a very broad statement. Think of it this way.....If my gung fu improves my cardio, I can run away easier, last longer in a fight, etc. If my gung fu improves my fighting ability then these fights will be shorter and easier (in theory....obviously not always). If gung fu increases my looks and confidance than maybe I can get a girlfriend....like I said, maybe....this will increase my mental health (sometimes like with other said things, no doubt they can sometimes be a pain). If I get beat up, or killed in a fight, then I am in poor health, am I not....so, gung fu is studied for my health.

[Water Dragon]

This is a tough one. I'm actually trying to mesh this one out in my mind currently.

I think there's two lines of thought here. The first one would be, If I'm attacked, or think I'm going to be attacked, I need to end the situation as quickly or efficiently as possible. For me, that means I throw him on the ground. Even if it doesn't hurt him, he's now on the floor wher he can't hurt me. And I can always run or follow up with a choke or armbar if need be. The problem is, as I realized Sunday, throws are dangerous. There's so many variables involved, the result could be anything from knocking the wind out him, knocking him out, paralyzing him (if his back hits the pavement wrong) or even killing him (if his head hits first.)

My other option is to use strikes, which are easier to control as far as power is concerned. My Taiji school had a saying that went, Just hit him hard enough to see if he can take your punch. If he can, hit him a little harder to see if he can take your punch. If he can, hit him a little harder...
Now, that's a good choice as well. But what if he's an amateur pro boxer, a Thai boxer, or just bigger, meaner, or more well trained than me? Well, I just f***ed up big time. Now I'm the one at the ground and subject to his mercy when I could have efficiently ended the altercation.

The short answer is, I don't have an answer. But I do know it's better not to fight if you have a choice. I guess no one can really say when that point will come or how you should handle it when it does. We're all on our own there.

As MonkeySlap Too said on another post, There are no guarantees.

[Budokan]

There are always degrees to which you must respond in any situation. Frankly, I would kill without compunction anyone trying to hurt or sexually molest my two little boys. No argument, no trying to talk out the situation, no discussion. Just immediate death for the sexual predator attacking my sons.

But that would be an extreme case.

[Merryprankster]

I would not argue that with great power comes great responsibility. I would argue that if you choose to be a "good" person as is commonly held by society (lets not get hyper relativist here... most societies frown on unjustified killngs and theft and what not), then with being a "good" person, comes the responsibility.

So in other words, take a good person--a genuinely good one, mind you, not the sort that doesn't kill because they are scared of the law, and provide them a lethal weapon, and their response will be that of the good, responsible person--I don't use this unless under extreme duress.

The power doesn't require the responsibility. Being a good person requires you to be responsible! The nice thing is that responsibility is situationally dependent, so you have to make choices about right and wrong all the time :)

There's not a thing under the sun you can't do as long as you are willing to accept the consequences.

Deciding what you should and shouldn't do---there's the rub :)

Fighting over the outcome of a hockey game? Ridiculous!!!

Being attacked by thugs on the street and using lethal force to defend myself? I'll willingly take my chances with the courts and keep myself ALIVE at the cost of my attackers lives if escape is not an option.

[Merryprankster]

Exactly Huang!!!

[TigerJaw]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
I would not argue that with great power comes great responsibility. I would argue that if you choose to be a "good" person as is commonly held by society (lets not get hyper relativist here... most societies frown on unjustified killngs and theft and what not), then with being a "good" person, comes the responsibility.

So in other words, take a good person--a genuinely good one, mind you, not the sort that doesn't kill because they are scared of the law, and provide them a lethal weapon, and their response will be that of the good, responsible person--I don't use this unless under extreme duress.

The power doesn't require the responsibility. Being a good person requires you to be responsible! The nice thing is that responsibility is situationally dependent, so you have to make choices about right and wrong all the time :)

There's not a thing under the sun you can't do as long as you are willing to accept the consequences.

Deciding what you should and shouldn't do---there's the rub :)

Doesn't the responsibility then some from knowing how powerful your techniques are otherwise you could kill somebody by accident. That has to be learned and that's a responsibility.

For example, a person who'se never gottten into a fight, like me, has no idea how dangerous a palm strike to the nose can be. Since it was explained to me, I'd definately avoid using it.

[scotty1]

Explain to me about a palm strike to the nose!!

[red5angel]

Well, the way I see it, is whether it makes me good or bad, I will do what I think is necessary. Budokan put out a good example, if I caught someone molesting a child of mine or raping my wife, mother, etc.... It would be over, I woul leave thier body where it lie and get the hell out but that is the decision I would make, and I would be willing to accept the responsibility if caught.
Same if someone assaulted me and wouldnt let up. I would do what I have to do, if it is to break a limb, or kill them.
The thing is this, in a fight or confrontation, you may not have total control, what if you are a much better fighter, but he is a hell of alot tougher and takes your first couple of blows without them deterring him. Or maybe there are multiple attackers? what do you do? I say you do what you have to do. They say it is wrong to take the law inot your own hands, but until I am provided with my own personal policeman to follow me around, I will do what I have to do.

[Kaitain(UK)]

Let's talk real world here

if someone attacks me I don't have time to ascertain how much trouble I'm in - I have to get out of the situation any which way I can. I can't guarantee I won't maim or even kill someone when I'm defending myself. I'll use what's there - and I won't hold back. An elbow might crash into an assailants throat or their neck might get broken through adrenalin-charged defence. It's a risk I take in defending myself - better that than the alternative.

I would love to have the confidence in my own ability that I would use minimal force and ramp it up as needed - but how many of us really have that confidence? If a 300 pound ogre comes running in on me I'm gonna kick his knee out and do as much damage as possible as he goes down - I'm not going to try and skip out the way and let him realise he's outclassed. What if he turns out to be a hardcore grappler and chokes me (as in to death rather than unconscious)? Or he's got a knife hidden that he's gooing to slice me up with as soon as he's close in? You've gotta be an arrogant s.o.b to think you can afford to be like that against all comers.

I think you have to be able to live with your response to any situation - I have a clear conscience, when I've been able to walk away I have.

[Merryprankster]

Tiger-- just for the record, the palm strike to the nose things is far overhyped. Much more likely to shatter the nose than drive it into the brain or anything like that.

And to explain my position, it's one of "preconditions."

That is, the argument is "If I have power, I must exercise that power responsibly to be a good person."

I believe this is a statement "Further down the road," so to speak. While it could be agreed upon as true, a better statement might be: "A good person has the quality of being as responsible as possible in all situations, whether great power exists or not.

Semantics, completely. :)