Hi Dave, I believe the term is "reasonable force" and it could only be attempted murder if he was intentionally trying to kill the person, which is in the hands of the CPS or Procurator Fiscal. You could get away with a kick to the head if the person down was still an threat and the attack would remove the threat. e.g. the person was armed or intending to get up and attack again. The unfortunate problem is, it is down to the perception of the Judiciary. However, members of the police, armed forces and prison service are held to a higher standard and would not be given the benefit of the doubt. Also remember there is a big difference to a fight in a busy street at rush hour and a dark park at midnight. The Bear.
Thanks for the explanation - got it now! As for delayed effects of injury - I played hockey with a guy years ago. he got hit in the head by the ball. dazed but seemingly OK, he went home, had tea and dropped dead. All head injuries should go straight to Casualty for observation IMHO.
Hi all, please don't take my comments out of context, it was stated that the purpose for kicking the head was to cause memory loss and or unconsciousness in self defence; hence my comments. indeed Agreed. I know If that philosophy is true then anyone studying a martial art (never mind aikido) has missed the plot IMHO.
No I disagree, it is about threat assessment. You don't treat a drunk pub attack with the same seriousness as a midnight robbery. You would give the lager lout a break and mearly imobilise him until the situation calms down or the police show. The Bear.
Your choice at the time - assessment is all. Are they suffering blurred vision, concussed or just a bit dazed. It happened to me with a hockey ball - a really loud crack and everyoen stopped and looked really worried. Happily I have no sense or feeling and was not even dazed. It could, however, explain the odd brain farts I have on MAP from time to time.
You've just shifted the goal posts to suit yourself. You first said and now its a I based my replies on what was written but, you are basing your replies to me on different hypothetical situations. My previous point being; why would you be in a park at midnight placing yourself in a potentially risk environment? Isn't situational awareness a key aspect of martial discipline. Your comment about threat assessment is a good one but, application of threat assessment when you've already placed yourself in that threat is a bit daft. My final point on this subject because I really don't want it to either de-rail or end up detracting from this thread topic; As an individual, I have no issues with taking any level of response (and that would; I suppose ultimately include kicking someone in the head).. if it was the only required method of keeping myself and my family safe however, as a martial artist I would find myself wondering, indeed seriously questioning my actual abilities *if* the only response I had (irrespective of when where or with whom).. to an attack was to kick my adversary in the head when he was already prone. The question I'd be asking myself is this, have I just spent the largest part of 20 years studying aikido to have learned nothing of any substance, leaving me only to kick someone in the head, which, lets face it requires absolutely zero skill to achieve.
This is particularly the point I was trying to get at in a round about way. In real situations, finishing strikes to the head of a prone enemy can be with the intention to 1. to kill or maim -- this is wartime only 2. to stun or knockout (and with this there is a possibility of short term memory loss) -- this is only for an active threat (someone attacking you) 3. a pre-emptive strike to cause pain/discomfort enough to distract the enemy. -- this can be to prevent the enemy from attacking you or reaching for a weapon long enough for you to gain a better position to deal with the situation. I consider the second and third intentions above as relevant to your statements. If an Aikidoka finds they must strike to stun or knockout an already prone enemy, this indeed could be a question on whether their training has been effective or not for them since one should either be able to disengage or immobilize the enemy as the first choices. However, the third intention of distraction, IMHO, is valid not only in many different martial arts but in Aikido also. I would not think doing so would be a reflection of poor Aikido training, in fact I might even say that it is a sign of better martial training to be in the mindset to pull off such techniques instinctively as needed. Now this is assuming that combat has been initiated, and already one has failed to resolve the situaton without "fighting." Just my opinion.
Of course, I sure ain't shifting them in your favour. This is Glasgow, not Baghdad. You can actually walk through a park at night. Too much heroism for me, I'll stick to the cheap shots thanks. The Bear.
Hi Guys Since rebel wado hit me with some zen I thought you may provide me with your take on this. STILLNESS WITHIN MOTION This is a phenomenon taken from swordsmanship that relates directly to aikido (in a real fight) Even when the body is in dynamic motion there must remain a "stilness" in the mind so that we can see clearly and avoid anger or carelessness. This is NOT passive indeed it is a COLD AND RUTHLESS attitude of mind. In a life threatening situation AN UNLIMITED RESPONCE is demanded. However if one has mastered his own anger and fear yet still sees that a destructive technique is warranted it shall be applied not in anger or carelessly but from neccesity. Rebel wado for your interest.. Aikido teaches us that we must if possible avoid fighting But if we must it is not regarded as a "fight" in that we are ready to face defeat if it comes. Our attitude MUST be one of instantaneous and sustained attack. I have found in the relatively few real fights that I have been in that the attackers all had one thing in common. THEY WANTED TO HURT ME BUT THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE HURT THEMSELVES.We are talking about the street and not competetive fighting. Another principle is that (contrary to some opinions) martial arts is the RETENTION of physical and spiritual energy until the EXPLOSIVE moment that they are needed. That moment is called musubi (physical contact, there is a mental contact before that but better discussed later) At that instant the attack should be accurate, powerful , sustained and intimidating seizing and asserting control. We can attack in this manner because aikido techniques are such that unless the intent is to do severe damage they may be applied as restraints. Changing them to ara waza is simply a change of attitude and a little change in the technique. So what do you thik about stillness in motion. Regards Koyo
Too much heroism according to Bear. From my limited understanding, I think what Koyo is describing is simply a conditioned mind. A state of mind which is achieved through consistent, arduous and thorough training, whilst I personally feel we have little or no chance of achieving the levels of psychological conditioning of a swordsman from feudal Japan, I think it is still possible to remain deeply calm under pressure however; I am also of the opinion that one's personality and temperament has a lot to do with how calm we can each individually be under given circumstances.
Ohhhhhhhh Okay, firstly in previous posts when I speak of intention such as the intent to kill or the intent to stun or the intent to distract... I am referring to TRAINING FOR not the actual real life situations. For instance the INTENT to immobilize means that in TRAINING I learn and practice techniques towards that goal. If I have an intent to kill, I train and practice techniques towards that goal. If I have an intent to distract... etc. In a real situation, the INTENTION is not as above but it is to resolve a situation in a reasonable and effective manner. The mind must be free and not in conflict to use whatever reasonable means that are necessary -- Whether that be towards survival, protection of others, disengagement, and/or subjugation of the enemy. In some regards, I will say that when conflict is in dynamic motion, there is no longer intention, there is only strategy (conscious thought) and commitment (conviction of the body). What I mean is that the mind must be able to process and be aware of what is happening so that it can formulate and adjust strategy. At the same time, the body moves and is constrained by the laws of physics (momentum, etc.). If the mind has to worry about the physics of the situation, it will be too busy to be aware and formulate strategy. If the body is forced to conform to movements it is not comfortable with, it will be unable to move fluidly and in effective coordination. The most extreme case would be a racing mind and body resulting in panic and shock. I would say that STILLNESS WITHIN MOTION is a way to describe how the mind and body are separate yet connected during conflict. It is the same in all martial arts to reach a state whereas the body moves with conviction in a fluid manner and the mind is free of the low level physics of what is happening. Free to be aware and formulate effective strategy.
My perspective on the above is simpler: With Fudoshin one is prepared and relaxed - the true centre of the volcano.. However, once we sense Fushin in an attaker we have a huge advantage in that however we act, his frozen mind is committed to a specific movement long before it occurs. Sensing the intention of the attacker must surely rank as one of the highest skills in MA.
Nicely put When you say intention, do you mean a) sensing the person's intent to attack? b) sensing the threat and understanding the movement and energy of that threat (angle of attack and distance)? c) sensing when there is a threat (e.g. danger) and knowing the proximity of the threat? d) none of the above e) a & b f) b & c g) a & c h) all of the above
In the most advanced exponents I believe option A is the moment when you sense that an attacker has mentally decided what to do but has not yet moved physically. There is a very brief moment when he has that 'frozen mind' and is beyond the point where he may make another choice. IMHO many MA exponents experience this 'frozen mind' - it's part of our learning process. WE also need to learn how to spot it and exploit it when we see it in others. For me, and under English law, if I truly believe that an attack is coming, I can pre-empt it. The best scenario is the one you label A. I don't necessarily need to 'second guess' the details of the attack, I merely have to sense intent and close him down. I may detect this from his eyes, posture etc or be lucky enough to have that 'second sense' of zanshin. This is inclusive of your C alternative. This moment occurs before he makes a physical move. IMHO the B alternative comes once he begins to move. I reckon we should all aim for Option A but should also be able to respond well to the other options. Just as an aside on this: as a Buddhist I believe we should judge a person on their intent rather than their actions. If I attempt to kill you in a 'hit and run' but fail to succeed that is far worse than making a driving error which kills you when had no intent to do so.
That video of Chiba shihan . I MUST tell this story. Once on a seminar George Girvan a good friend of mine managed to beat me to the punch when Chiba shihan asked for a uke. George attacked and received that omote you just saw, being George he immediately lept up and attacked again, same omote, same slap to the side of the head!! George got up attacked again, same result. Finally Chiba shihan told him to sit back down and came over to me and asked"WHY DOSEN'T HE PROTECT HIS HEAD?" WHO SAYS THERE ARE NO STRIKES IN AIKIDO? On a lighter side another of my students Bill Noble atempted ikkyo against Chiba shihan's shomen. The strike was so powerfull it cut right through and struck Bill's head. Chiba shihan told him to sit down and as Bill sat beside me Chiba shihan rubbed his hand. Bill whispered to me GOT HIM!!! This style of "teaching" was common under Chiba shihan where you had to learn for yourself. Once he said Omote meaning a technique directly across his front then proceeded to attack the dan grades one after another with shomen that were so powerful that they could not effect a technique . When my turn came I knew there was no way to make omote so I slipped to the side ura AND STILL COULD NOT UNBALANCE HIM. But he did smile and said "OK URA" Koyo
Greetings all, and thank you for that increadible video. It has me seriously re-evaluating a lot of my ideas about aikido. Absolutely brilliant. Thanks Paul
Actually Dave the way I see it stillness in motion applies more to my view than yours. My thoughts are still so my body is able to perform the attack without trying to morally justify if it is the right thing to do. While in battle the body must be free to act without thoughts interupting the flow. This is why the style of training affects outcome of battle (as a former soldier you will be well aware of this). My mind is not running away doing something else. It is just focussed on the processing the tactical information without conscious analysis. I see an opening I cut, I don't think should I cut, the battle is only over when the enemies ability to retaliate is removed. Heroism, is a conscious choice that puts you in harms way when the best chance of safety would be to do something else. Like not kicking a man when he is down even though you know the battle is not over. A down man is not a beaten man. The Bear
