Thread: A father's Love and Rage

Originally Posted by Bruno

It makes perfect sense to do this, in the case of KM. KM was designed to be learned by all Israelis, not just the soldiers. I was told that one of the goals was that ordinary desk jockeys and clerks would learn enough useful skills in a short amount of time to survive the most common scenarios.

One of the big issues was that normal people are not inclined to use extreme violence, and will hesitate or freeze. This has historically always been true for drafted militia men. After WW1, analysis showed that only 18% of the soldiers shot their guns at the other side. Even at point blank range, many people didn't shoot. The reason is that killing is messy business and normal human beings don't have it in their nature. Many rank and file soldiers then were just workers who were given a gun.

Since then, training has gradually changed to include as many realistic exercises as possible. With WW2, the percentage had risen to 40ish. With vietnam it was over 80%. (I have no sources at hand so I could be off on the exact percentages)

Many people would not be able to stab another human being if they suddenly found themselves there without preparation. When adrenalin takes over, you lose virtually all thought processes and you fall back on muscle memory, habits and reflexes. By 'stabbing' a person at the beginning of each and every training session, you make it an automatic action. If you ever find yourself high on adrenalin with a knife in your hands, you will fall back to the things that will come automatically (stabbing) instead of freezing in an extreme scenario that is unfamiliar and unnatural.

On Killing by Lt. Col Dave Grossman breaks it all down amazingly. Its a terrible science to say the least, but an interesting read non the less.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Yeah, you're right. The one thing I liked about Krav Maga is that it builds on 'natural' movements, in stead of forcing you to do unnatural things. It also emphasised de-escalating conflicts, which is handy for where I work (a prison). One think I hated (or at least one thing that scared me) about myself is the tendency for me to go all out in fights and conflict situations. At times, even as a recruit instructor, I had no control at all over myself, and would, even as a child, happily get down to using anything I could (rubbish bins, bricks, my push bike) to hurt people when pushed. It took a lot to get me there, but once there I just 'snapped'. I guess that's true of a lot of people, and for me, I think it links to profound feelings of a lack of self worth as a child and teenager.

If I worked in a prison, I'd choose KM as well. I am in traditional Japanese jujutsu and ninjutsu (not the made up flashy kind but the 'boring' actual kind). I love those arts for a combination of reasons, but if I needed to be able to deal with close quarters violence in a fairly short amount time (months instead of years), they would not be my first choice. This is what I tell all new students.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Oh, BTW, I saw a documentary of 'remote' warfare methods a little while ago, with people piloting drones from the comfort of America. An interestign concept...

I can't really put words to it, but I hate the concept. When violence comes at no risk to the person committing it, and the person committing it is not confronted with the ugliness, lives become cheap.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

OH MY,somebody got into the cooking Whine tonight

You don't mean me, do you? I posted that at work, you should see what I do on the wine!

Well, we've already heard what you do with your empty beer bottles while you're driving, so please, tell us what you do on the wine. I'm intrigued...


Mick

Was the man justified? Who knows.

Is it understandable? Yes.

Is there a big possibility that I'd do the same in the same circumstances? Yes.

Would I plan out killing the man? No.

Do I feel that the man should be convicted? No.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Was the man justified? Who knows.

Is it understandable? Yes.

Is there a big possibility that I'd do the same in the same circumstances? Yes.

Would I plan out killing the man? No.

Do I feel that the man should be convicted? No.

That pretty much sums it up, imo

Follow up.

More details have been released.

Apparently the father heard the daughter screaming. He ran up and found the assailant with his pants down. The father attacked the man then called the police asking for help and an ambulance. The police reported that the father was VERY distraught on the 911 tape and after they arrived and had not intended to kill the assailant.

The Grand Jury stated that Texas Law allows deadly force to be used to stop a sexual assault. So that ended it.

That's good for the father and his family. However, with the way the legal system here works, if the slain attacker has any close family members still living, they'll probably sue the father in civil court for wrongful death.

Originally Posted by ReardenSteel

That's good for the father and his family. However, with the way the legal system here works, if the slain attacker has any close family members still living, they'll probably sue the father in civil court for wrongful death.

I've heard about this before, with the OJ case.
Could someone please explain this to me?
How can there be 2 lawsuits for the same thing? If the legal court (or whatever it is called) has decided that the man has done nothing wrong, on what basis could a civil court then decide to convict for that same offense?

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've heard about this before, with the OJ case.Could someone please explain this to me?How can there be 2 lawsuits for the same thing? If the legal court (or whatever it is called) has decided that the man has done nothing wrong, on what basis could a civil court then decide to convict for that same offense?

Civil courts don't work on the same basis of reasonable doubt that the criminal courts do. For example, you could be tried for Murder 1, but if the prosecution doesn't prove that you fit the definition of Murder 1 beyond reasonable doubt, you would go free. It doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime, you just didn't commit Murder 1 by the definition of the law. This happens all the time here in the US as prosecuters try to over reach instead of going with a slam dunk conviction on lesser charges, i.e. Murder 2, manslaughter or involutary manslaughter. Civil courts, on the other hand, use more of a blanket term such as Wrongful Death to cover the whole range.