Thou Shalt Not Poomse: Dr. Russell Tardo on The Evil of Martial Arts

Discussion in 'Articles' started by SifuPhil, May 24, 2013.

  1. Dave76

    Dave76 Deheuol Gwyn Dragon

    Do you let your kids train with the adults? Personally I'm not a big fan of having kids around when the adults are training. Some few who are borderline between the two stages and don't still act like 6yr olds are ok, but they're the exception.

    Adult males in particular can be very prickly about their sense of pride. Stuck in a class of kids, many of whom a far more advanced than themselves, can be too much for a lot of adults, men in particular. It's one thing getting made to feel inadequate by other adults, another thing entirely to have it done by children. I would imagine more than a few would find somewhere else to train if unable to let go of the ego that comes with being born a man.

    Hell! I'm as easy going about getting my butt kicked at training as anyone you'll meet, but in all honesty I still wouldn't like possibly being shown up by jnr's week after week, let alone having to put up with all the constant noise that comes with having young ones around, etc, etc...

    ( constantly fighting the urge to show some noisey little snot what a real punch or kick to the gut feels like :sneaky:)
  2. Sabomnim Dan

    Sabomnim Dan Disciple

    Dave, the seniors assist in the juniors class (holding focus mitts, swinging padded 'swords/knives' for evasion techniques, etc) they train separately when we send the kids home to bed.
    This allows us to cover some basic philosophy and individual drills such as poomsae for the seniors without taking up an excessive amount of their own class time which is usually better spent on more advanced drills, sparring and practical defence.
    We find the seniors become fairly philosophical about the comparison of ability, but then that may be to do with us instructors constantly lamenting the demise of our youthful flexibility and energy and our focus on efficient use of individual ability.
    Dave76 likes this.
  3. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    I like the part about "take them out", but I would probably hesitate because I wouldn't know where they'd like to go - the movies, the restaurant ...?

    The thing is, I'm making the mistake of assuming everyone has some degree of common sense and can figure out when to run and when to fight. Stories like this one are still rarities here.

    Here's a local one. Hair salon just a few doors down the street from me. Sunday evening about 6:00PM. Owner (male, late 40's) is in the locked shop eating noodles (!) and watching TV. Knock on the door - he recognizes two guys who are regular customers, but they're wearing (TAH-DAH!) hoodies.

    He tells them through the door he's closed, they convince him to open the door, they tell him to give them all the money in the safe. He picks up a pair of nice sharp scissors, but thinks twice - instead, he throws something heavy through the front window to attract attention.

    ... on a Sunday at 6PM. In an area where hardly anyone walks. The perps make off with a small cash drawer instead of the contents of the safe.

    Now, I don't know the particulars about what level of threat they presented - had he used the scissors he'd most probably be in jail right now. I guess he did what the cops would advise him to do, but he's out his cash drawer and the price of a front window. Even if they catch the kids they'll probably get a slap on the wrist.

    Who's the loser here? The store owner, no matter WHAT he does.

    If it were me and I knew these kids I'd go where they live and give them a beating they wouldn't forget. Then of course I'd be arrested.

    IF I got caught.

    You have to admit that cops are not there to STOP crime, only to RESPOND to it. There's a difference, and certainly a big difference, between an amateur robbery and a pro street-mugging. I'm saying that if you're trained you almost have a duty to beat the snot out of the street mugger and leave him for the rats, because the justice system isn't going to do anything to him and he's just going to continue preying on the weak. Sure, he provides job security for the police, but that isn't my concern. MY concern is cleaning up the streets in a way that is effective.

    "No vigilantism", I hear? Sure, because the cops don't want people to catch-on that it works. They'd be out a job.
  4. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    what nonsense, get a gun pointed at you and "assume" that they just going to leave you alone all safe and sound, ignorant people, Thing that irritates me is that this sort of crap is even entertained by the legal system, waste of tax payers money
    SifuPhil likes this.
  5. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    the vigilante part would be finding out where they are living and going to sort them out anything with an immediate response would be classified as self defence as long as its reasonable and with appropriate force this is how it works here anyway,So guy attacks you take him out, fair play generally and happens all the time, My long time Dr once pulled into his driveway 2 guys armed jumped out and tried to hijack him(car jack i think in states) he shot and killed both of them in self defence, there was an investigation he was protecting his life and was under immediate danger done. That was the end of that

    but looking at it from a psychological perspective if it truly were fight or flight scenario you would react instinctively and wouldnt be thinking of causation and "what might happen if" thats why "fight or flight" is a response system so u dont have to actually think per say, So in the above example if he picked up the scissors and then thought it through and then decided it wasnt worth it and then put them down obviously wasnt an immediate threat, Just looking at it from a different angle.
    SifuPhil and Sabomnim Dan like this.
  6. Sabomnim Dan

    Sabomnim Dan Disciple

    I waited until I got home from work today to respond, SifuPhil, because I believe you deserved a more considered response than I could formulate at work.

    A quick disclaimer: My tone becomes quite direct and blunt toward the end. None of what I write is directed at any particular person, including SifuPhil. I respond to SifuPhil's post because he raises a number of points which I am passionate about and regularly address with people much less reasonable than the people on this forum.

    You never fail to amuse.

    It's hard to say who the loser is here without more detail. On the story presented I can understand your perspective that the store owner loses based on bearing the cost of the stolen cash drawer and the broken window. The fact is though the safe wasn't touched. I'd wager there was more in the safe than the cash drawer and the store owner wasn't injured.

    To use an analogy to illustrate my perspective: If you were driving and hit a patch of black ice which sent you into an uncontrolled skid aimed at the back of a large truck and you managed to avoid the truck and sideswipe a tree, would you consider yourself lucky? My point is that while you have still suffered damages, you've avoided a potential catastrophe.

    It's impossible to determine the potential disaster that may have been avoided by giving up the cash draw without knowing the initial threat level, but the fact is the store owner didn't lose everything.

    An example from my part of the world from last week. Two youths approached the manager of a motor parts shop demanding money. One of them struck the manager to the back of the head to prompt him to comply. Unfortunately for the two hapless thugs, the manager was a black belt in Taekwondo and went to town on them (within acceptable limits of self-defence) which prompted one of our 'heroes' to pull out a box cutter. The manager fought them off and sent them running out into the street but not before sustaining enough cuts and slashes to put him in hospital for a few days. All in all, probably $500 in the till. Worth it?

    I admit no such thing. Certainly much of police work is reactive; people call the police to report crime, we attend after the fact and investigate. A lot of police work is also preventative; initiatives such as CRTED (Crime Reduction Through Environmental Design), not to mention the disruption of activities of both organised crime and recidivist offenders to prevent further offences. There are studies that show a simple visible presence is enough to deter low level crime. I am yet to see a study or anecdotal evidence that having the snot beat out of an offender removes their desire to prey on those weaker than them. Criminals suffer beatings in prison regularly (from other inmates usually) but don't necessarily come out and lead law-abiding lives. Instead those that suffer the beatings tend to simply reassess who they deem to be weaker and prey on even more vulnerable victims (the elderly, frail or children).
    Police are not responsible for the sentences handed down by the judiciary; there is a reason the court system is separate from policing and that reason ties in to my response to your assertion that vigilantism works. Incidentally it is akin to the same argument used ad nauseum by anti-police protesters: 'who polices the police?' The fact is, due to the scope of legislated powers, police are subject to intense scrutiny to prevent misuse of those powers. We are tested and judged on our professionalism, integrity and impartiality in the courts, in the media and in the public arena. All of this serves to ensure that when police powers are exercised, they are exercised appropriately. It is rare (in the land of Oz anyway) for there to be any retaliation against the police for exercising their powers due to a generally accepted acknowledgment that police are an essential element of a civilised society.
    Other than the police, who subjects vigilantes to such scrutiny to ensure matters are not taken too far? Other vigilantes? Would that not then lead to a culture of retaliation and regress society to a 'might is right' philosophy?

    As DeeD wrote; if you're in the situation where you are physically threatened, by all means take action to end the threat (reasonably) if you are capable. The concept of a citizen's arrest is almost universal around the world. In every case though, the goal must be to end the immediate threat, not to seek revenge for being threatened or to predict a future in which there will be other threats and end them before they occur. One is self defence, the other is indulging in a self-serving desire to prove your own superiority cleverly disguised behind a thin veneer of 'honour' or 'civil responsibility'.

    If you truly want to clean up the streets, vote for legislators that will enact law that benefits the majority of law-abiding people instead of giving undeserved rights to those that break the law, pressure the judiciary through public outcry to impose more appropriate sentences that will dissuade people from breaking the law, join the police and put that armchair expertise to use in improving police processes and procedures, or a combination of all three.

    I think, at least, we agree on the point that people should learn how to effectively defend themselves to maximise their options in a confrontation.
    SifuPhil and DeeD like this.
  7. Vldz

    Vldz Warrior Monk

    So at the end of the day, did the verdict says the clerk to be guilty? The clerk got sued, but did the clerk won or lose the case?

    The way I see it, just because somebody can sue somebody else, there is no guarantee that the plaintiff is going to win the case. In my understanding, "suing" is pretty much like throwing a punch, there is no guarantee it is going to hit.
    Sabomnim Dan likes this.
  8. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    This is a good point we all feel a sense of "justice"has been done when a criminal is beaten up or shot for instance but we dont normally think further than that, from the perspective that they would probably go after someone easier next time as u mentioned, Statistically most criminals in prison systems are repeat offenders so the "scare them straight with a beating" probably isnt the best method but in saying that people should defend themselves and not take a "fine let them take everything" all the time mentality because this breeds complacency and can probably increase the likelihood of more people doing the same thing. So i think its an interesting debate in general. Interesting to have the viewpoint of someone within the police (y)

    Yea not here :unsure: I think we still have the highest police mortality rate in the world,

    haha I think this is the part for the disclaimer :)
  9. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    Thank you - I appreciate that.

    Not a problem.

    I think I get what you're saying here and would normally agree on the general principle, but then I start thinking a few steps further, to a place where I know the police don't really have the time or desire to go.

    What I think of is, where do you draw the line between petty and serious? I know the laws state the qualifying conditions for a slew of crimes, but I'm thinking "what price safety?"

    Back when I lived in NYC's Chinatown, Little Italy was a stone's throw away and I spent a lot of time hanging out there. One thing about that area was different than the rest of Manhattan - you didn't have any crime there, at least not against the citizens. Several times I witnessed the "Bent-Nose Boys" administering beatings to purse-snatchers and muggers, and those miscreants never showed up again. In fact, word got out that you didn't play your games in that particular back-yard, because you wouldn't just be arrested - you'd have a lesson you'd remember the rest of your life.

    0% recidivism - show me another system that works that well. :sneaky:

    Back to the price we put on the feeling of safety - how much is it worth? I know the value people put on money, but I'm talking having your sense of security removed, feeling violated in your own property. the helplessness and despair you feel when you're a victim ... sure, you can do nothing, hope they only take the money and not beat or kill you like they so often do just for kicks, and you'll only be out a few hundred bucks. But that empty feeling of being violated will stay with you forever.

    How much is THAT worth?

    At least when you fight back, you have a very different psychological result - it's much easier to live with yourself as someone who tried and failed than as someone who was a coward.

    "Flying the flag", yes, I know. Tell me how effective that was in Watts, Harlem or any of the other places where law and order totally broke down. A threat only works when there is fear of punishment, and that punishment always takes place on an individual basis. Get a crowd together (Lokutis, care to weigh in about Turkey?) and the "visible presence" factor is nil.

    The beatings that are given in prison take place in a microcosm, a closed system - you can't avoid Bubba in an 8'x14' cell. Out in the real world you have room to move, places to hide and a posse to back you up. Those beatings lose their meaning in the real world.

    As for the anecdotal evidence, see my story about Little Italy.

    I realize that enforcement and judiciary are two separate beasts - I'm sorry if I sounded like I mixed them up.

    But there are too many stories of cops on the take, bad cops, crooked cops ... I know they're the minority, but it makes you distrust all of them.

    I live in a backwater of Pennsylvania where cousins hire each other and the old-boy network is still going strong. Daily you'll read or hear about cops (and politicians, and lawyers, and judges) going over the line. When the system is that broken, no amount of nice words about over-seeing the force is going to change the attitude of the general public.

    In my perfect world ;) vigilantes are self-policing. If one goes "too far" (by group consensus, perhaps, or public reaction) the other vigilantes will take care of the problem, just like the good cops will band together and get rid of the bad -

    ... oh, wait, The Blue Line ... I forgot about that ...

    I might need to brush up on my legal knowledge, but I thought a citizen's arrest here in the U.S. only applied to a felony, not a misdemeanor.

    I don't see it as being self-serving; very much the opposite. I am being the public vigil, watching out for their safety. It has nothing to do with me, other than I possess the necessary tools to get the job done.

    As for the political process, thanks but no thanks. All talk, no action is how I see it. In the time it takes to pass a law there can be hundreds of infractions of that law.

    It's simple - take out the bad guy and he can't be bad no mo'.

    I wouldn't join the police because I don't like having a job to do while my hands are tied.

    Totally agreed. And thanks for being a great debater. (y)
  10. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    :) I agree with the sentiment of the "remove the bad apple" but in this example and you know this too ;) that Little Italy would have its own hierarchy in place in terms of criminal element, There would normally be some form of organized crime in that area or region and this would get out to other criminals who are not affiliated and this would deter them. We have the same thing here in certain places and I know they have it in Brazil as well, Certain lower income areas are actually supported by the local drug dealers etc etc this helps to buy loyalty and creates a general distrust for the police now a lot of the time the crime within that specific area is "acceptable" because they get looked after but it spills over into the more affluent areas around it and thats where the crimes take place.
    SifuPhil likes this.
  11. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    True. I'm not saying I didn't know that Tony "The Beak" or Joey "Shine" were in organized crime; I'm just saying that little old ladies could walk down the street without having their brains bashed in. Yes, the neighborhood was "supported" by those guidos but you know what? It worked.

    Maybe I have short eyes and I don't see the whole picture; I know they did "bad" things, but it was usually to each other or to a business. In the first case, who cares? And in the second, well, to me a burglary is "better" than a robbery ...
  12. DeeD

    DeeD Nak Muay

    Haha Tony the Beak :troll: , the thing is that system works for everybody that is earning a wage as a "worker" not as an owner, because the people that own those business are the ones being exploited, If u owned one of the businesses their Im sure the system would not really be beneficial because now u get exploited by Tony and his buddies and then cant go to the cops cause they are not welcome in that neighbourhood , Perspective changes everything - The worker vs the owner
    SifuPhil likes this.
  13. Master Fahy

    Master Fahy Samurai

    I won't mention any names but, I can see who are the thugs in this forum! Ha!Ha! Master Fahy
    SifuPhil, Vldz and Sabomnim Dan like this.
  14. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    Vldz likes this.
  15. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    Well, I guess if I were a business owner I'd have a few choices ...
    1. Do a Steven Seagal and fight them single-handed - end up dead
    2. Move the business somewhere else
    3. Play their game
    If I went with #3, sure, I'd have to pay them off, but I could look at it as just another cost of doing business. I'd also be paying into the protection fund, where no "outsiders" would ever bother me.

    Choice #1 would just be silly, and #2 would depend how good that location was. I just can't imagine a location so golden that I wouldn't be willing to leave it, though.
  16. Master Fahy

    Master Fahy Samurai

    Nice photoshop SifuPhil, It's almost perfect! Too bad your theories aren't! Ha! Ha! Master Fahy
    SifuPhil likes this.
  17. Caneman

    Caneman Test all things.

    Pretty weird how he has no left ear.
    SifuPhil likes this.
  18. Sabomnim Dan

    Sabomnim Dan Disciple

    It's not weird; it's a lesson not to cross the mob.
    SifuPhil likes this.
  19. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    Funny thing about theories ... they have been proven multiple times, can be repeated by other professionals and are generally accepted by knowledgeable people as "truth". :D
  20. SifuPhil

    SifuPhil Lucky Cat Is Lucky

    WHAT? Can't hear you ...

Share This Page