Tweet
A moment of free time in my full training schedule...
I wrote: "I didn't claim that it would cause them to become criminals. The point of my
question was what if anything do you do to find out if a person might
already be in that "dark place"?"
We can split hairs all we want, but again my reply is that you don't, and you never will. No matter how many background checks you do. The only way you MIGHT stop a student from commiting a crime with a knife is if you don't teach it.... at all. And even that doesn't mean they won't use a knife- you're just dissolving your input on teaching others how to survive against one.
That's right. I won't teach it to an individual that I feel is unstable or already in that "dark place". That way I can focus my attention on the other students. Admittedly, in my years of teaching I have only had a couple of students that I feel fell into that category.
Now they can still commit a crime with their bare hands and a bludgeoning weapon... you as an instructor have to rely on the fact that you have no control of anyone.
True. But I do have control to the extent that I can choose to let them go if I feel they are unstable.
Look at any 'morality' based system that's on this planet... if they can't do it, then a martial arts instructor should stick to what they do best... martial arts. Leave the morality to the professionals. Place a disclaimer and allow the student to know they are responsible for their own actions.
I guess the difference between us is that I feel I should exercise a little personal responsibility into whether I will teach what I know to someone who is unstable and/or is exhibiting some very violent tendencies. I use disclaimers as well, but I feel also that there needs to be a little more discretion than just the paper alone.
Which again supports my statement that it isn't the material, but the way a defense will twist ANY background to suit their case. They don't want their boy to go to prison or take responsibility for his actions therefore they blame others. The instructors were just convenient, the case would be slanted to anything that the attorney's feel will support their case.... rock music, bad hair day...etc
You missed the point. If that instructor had done what he normally did in past situations and heeded the warning signs, he never would have worked with this guy in the first place. Hence no lawsuit. He looked past them because this kid was a relative and because of that, ended up in court. Beyond that, your right about the defense.
The instructors were just convenient, the case would be slanted to anything that the attorney's feel will support their case.... rock music, bad hair day...etc.
....knife videos? Could happen.
I wrote: "A fairly recent example of someone using what many would believe to be controversial materials (and many outside of
what we train and teach would feel what we do is quite controversial) to kill was using the paladin press book about being a hitman. The book didn't make him commit the crime, he committed the crime using the material as a guide."
I was making a similar point to the one you did above, though in a more round-about way. Nothing about "hitman techniques being taught here".
Buy the DVD / attend a seminar and find out.
If you want to send me one to review.....
Ahhh, that's an entirely different topic William. That wasn't what you asked initially
No, but I don't generally have a problem if a discussion evolves.
What makes this so obvious? First we have to lay down the foundation of what the content of the video entails compared to what a daily class with other instructors?
(Let's just say same content)
Well, let's see. How about physical energy and tactile feedback? Those are two huge components that are lost and can't be transferred through video. It's something that can be demonstrated in most any sport or physical activity. You train hands on with people (instructors, varsity, first string, national champions etc...) who are better than you week in and week out, and you will learn at a faster and more intensive level than just watching and copying alone. Visual feedback is a component of both, but combine that with physical energy and tactile feedback and you will many times get a synergistic effect that far exceeds visual training/copying alone.
Therefore this could easily lead to bashing another system or school would it not? maybe we need to rethink before we go into that.
Not unless your into bashing other systems. At this point I'm trying to keep this on a "content" and "exercising a bit of intuition and responsibility" level.
We should aslso include:
1. Advantages in learning from video.
2. Advantages in learning from Seminars
3. Advantages in learning from private.
4. Advantages in learning from full time (which you already did)
MHO
1. Video: Good for a student to use as reference material when training on their own out side of class to re-enforce what's taught in class. I can see advanced students who have had a lot of hands on training being able to pick up material straight from video. I just don't feel it's good for new students to learn from exclusively.
2. Seminars: (most attract mixed skill levels. Depends on focus but overall...) Good introduction for new students to get a feel of a system (though I've heard many new students say they felt it was like trying catch water in their mouth from a fire hose. Most of it got past them but they still had fun). Good for intermediate students to re-enforce some basics and/or get exposed to some advanced materials. Good for advanced students to get a bit of advanced training, or a good exercise in the basics. Now that you got a bit of physical and tactile energy and feed back from the instructor/s running the seminar, add a video of the seminar and it's better than video alone, but still lacking compared to daily/weekly training (of the same materials).
3. Private training is very good. An instructor can focus full attention on you and your personal mechanics in relation to what they want to teach. Again, it boils down to training hands on with people better than your self, in this case, probably the best in that particular system in your area.
What if:
1. You can replay, slo mo the nuances
2. See it at different angles (close up, overhead, mirror etc.)
3. Train at your own pace and not at the student with the Bruce Lee learning curve.
4. Email the instructor or ALL the licensed instructors for input for specific questions.
Are these also not advantages?
Sure, they can be a tool, but I still feel they lack physical energy and tactile feedback....and that's huge in my book.
Let me play devil's advocate:
1. How does this stop any lawyer from slanting the actual instruction as something detrimental to the student if he does commit a crime? Wouldn't it still be something that any lawyer could utilize in their assessment?
It doesn't. Their defense is going to do/say what ever they can to get them off. But at least you can show that you made an effort to check the person out to the best of your ability. If a background check uncovers a history of violent offenses, you pass. Your more apt to find out with checks than just having them sign a disclaimer. No?
2. How does this absolve PTK from the past thirty years of not using background checks (since you wrote "instigating" which I understand as something 'new') if one of their previous instructors or student's student commits a knife related crime
You understand correctly. It doesn't absolve anyone from the past. It's a new measure for a new time. Post 9/11. Taking some responsibility for what we teach and whom we teach it to is not a bad thing. It's not a "secret society" thang as I believe you commented to at some point in the past.
Now, this may have been just a rumor, but I read something about an instructor down in Florida who supposedly taught some blade techniques to one (unknowingly) of the hijackers. If true, a background check might have raised some red flags on this individual. I state again, that may have just been a rumor.
3. Wouldn't this 'instigation' also fall into the marketing agenda I referred to earlier?
Now that PTK has 'instigated' background checks, it is rather convenient that it's now of some concern to presume OTHERs are not doing likewise? I found the question moot since one has to assume background checks weren't being done by anyone else.
Umm, maybe if your paranoid. You can view it as "convenient" if you like. My understanding is that it was something that had been discussed for a while now. I can't say whether others are or aren't. Just in my experience, I haven't run into, nor heard of, any other systems that are. You can paint it anyway you like.
Here's where our idealogies possibly separate William.
Not really, we are on par for most of the points you list.
Now...
The criminal doesn't care about checks.
True. But then again they wouldn't likely be learning anything from us then.
They can already kill a majority of the unarmed populace with a blade.
True. But they are always looking for an edge. And they could certainly find it in the FMA's. There was someone on the E-Digest a while back who was trying to get information on techniques to pass on to someone who turned out to be in prison. I'll have to go back into the archives and find it.
The only check LEOs have is to learn how to survive a knife attack.
The only check they have to "LEARN"? Your right, that's why we work with them.
Any other check is mere surface ornament
I disagree. LEO's will take any advantage (however small) they can get to help them ahead and stay alive.
From the mindset of a Feeder based system like Sayoc Kali:
Don't worry about what the criminal knows.
Accept that they are the BEST there is and then go from that.
You don't have much time otherwise.
And any other system worth their salt. Always train as if your going against someone with more skill.
It starts to look like a marketing campaign or what could be called a defensive marketing strategy...
We can certainly invalidate it by relegating it to paranoia
Raf, your a smart guy, but you need to get out more.
Summary: (IMHO)
*Take a bit of responsibility in whom you pass knowledge onto.
*Background checks, maybe not 100%, but a responsible step in the right direction. Beyond that it's intuition and gut instinct based on observation and physical interaction. Not something your going to get over video training.
*Always looking to give LEO's and civilians an edge by giving them the best training possible.
*Video training alone...not good, especially for a beginner to learn from.
*Seminars...have their place but....
*Nothing beats daily/weekly hands on training when your coming up the ranks.
*Friction between individuals in Sayoc and Pekiti....apparent.
*Anyone with a blade is dangerous and can kill. More skill makes them more dangerous (even to defenders with skill).
*Criminals are always looking for an edge. As FMA's become more prevalent, it's more likely criminal elements will look into it.
William
I wrote: "I didn't claim that it would cause them to become criminals. The point of my
question was what if anything do you do to find out if a person might
already be in that "dark place"?"
We can split hairs all we want, but again my reply is that you don't, and you never will. No matter how many background checks you do. The only way you MIGHT stop a student from commiting a crime with a knife is if you don't teach it.... at all. And even that doesn't mean they won't use a knife- you're just dissolving your input on teaching others how to survive against one.
That's right. I won't teach it to an individual that I feel is unstable or already in that "dark place". That way I can focus my attention on the other students. Admittedly, in my years of teaching I have only had a couple of students that I feel fell into that category.
Now they can still commit a crime with their bare hands and a bludgeoning weapon... you as an instructor have to rely on the fact that you have no control of anyone.
True. But I do have control to the extent that I can choose to let them go if I feel they are unstable.
Look at any 'morality' based system that's on this planet... if they can't do it, then a martial arts instructor should stick to what they do best... martial arts. Leave the morality to the professionals. Place a disclaimer and allow the student to know they are responsible for their own actions.
I guess the difference between us is that I feel I should exercise a little personal responsibility into whether I will teach what I know to someone who is unstable and/or is exhibiting some very violent tendencies. I use disclaimers as well, but I feel also that there needs to be a little more discretion than just the paper alone.
Which again supports my statement that it isn't the material, but the way a defense will twist ANY background to suit their case. They don't want their boy to go to prison or take responsibility for his actions therefore they blame others. The instructors were just convenient, the case would be slanted to anything that the attorney's feel will support their case.... rock music, bad hair day...etc
You missed the point. If that instructor had done what he normally did in past situations and heeded the warning signs, he never would have worked with this guy in the first place. Hence no lawsuit. He looked past them because this kid was a relative and because of that, ended up in court. Beyond that, your right about the defense.
The instructors were just convenient, the case would be slanted to anything that the attorney's feel will support their case.... rock music, bad hair day...etc.
....knife videos? Could happen.
I wrote: "A fairly recent example of someone using what many would believe to be controversial materials (and many outside of
what we train and teach would feel what we do is quite controversial) to kill was using the paladin press book about being a hitman. The book didn't make him commit the crime, he committed the crime using the material as a guide."
I was making a similar point to the one you did above, though in a more round-about way. Nothing about "hitman techniques being taught here".
Buy the DVD / attend a seminar and find out.
If you want to send me one to review.....
Ahhh, that's an entirely different topic William. That wasn't what you asked initially
No, but I don't generally have a problem if a discussion evolves.
What makes this so obvious? First we have to lay down the foundation of what the content of the video entails compared to what a daily class with other instructors?
(Let's just say same content)
Well, let's see. How about physical energy and tactile feedback? Those are two huge components that are lost and can't be transferred through video. It's something that can be demonstrated in most any sport or physical activity. You train hands on with people (instructors, varsity, first string, national champions etc...) who are better than you week in and week out, and you will learn at a faster and more intensive level than just watching and copying alone. Visual feedback is a component of both, but combine that with physical energy and tactile feedback and you will many times get a synergistic effect that far exceeds visual training/copying alone.
Therefore this could easily lead to bashing another system or school would it not? maybe we need to rethink before we go into that.
Not unless your into bashing other systems. At this point I'm trying to keep this on a "content" and "exercising a bit of intuition and responsibility" level.
We should aslso include:
1. Advantages in learning from video.
2. Advantages in learning from Seminars
3. Advantages in learning from private.
4. Advantages in learning from full time (which you already did)
MHO
1. Video: Good for a student to use as reference material when training on their own out side of class to re-enforce what's taught in class. I can see advanced students who have had a lot of hands on training being able to pick up material straight from video. I just don't feel it's good for new students to learn from exclusively.
2. Seminars: (most attract mixed skill levels. Depends on focus but overall...) Good introduction for new students to get a feel of a system (though I've heard many new students say they felt it was like trying catch water in their mouth from a fire hose. Most of it got past them but they still had fun). Good for intermediate students to re-enforce some basics and/or get exposed to some advanced materials. Good for advanced students to get a bit of advanced training, or a good exercise in the basics. Now that you got a bit of physical and tactile energy and feed back from the instructor/s running the seminar, add a video of the seminar and it's better than video alone, but still lacking compared to daily/weekly training (of the same materials).
3. Private training is very good. An instructor can focus full attention on you and your personal mechanics in relation to what they want to teach. Again, it boils down to training hands on with people better than your self, in this case, probably the best in that particular system in your area.
What if:
1. You can replay, slo mo the nuances
2. See it at different angles (close up, overhead, mirror etc.)
3. Train at your own pace and not at the student with the Bruce Lee learning curve.
4. Email the instructor or ALL the licensed instructors for input for specific questions.
Are these also not advantages?
Sure, they can be a tool, but I still feel they lack physical energy and tactile feedback....and that's huge in my book.
Let me play devil's advocate:
1. How does this stop any lawyer from slanting the actual instruction as something detrimental to the student if he does commit a crime? Wouldn't it still be something that any lawyer could utilize in their assessment?
It doesn't. Their defense is going to do/say what ever they can to get them off. But at least you can show that you made an effort to check the person out to the best of your ability. If a background check uncovers a history of violent offenses, you pass. Your more apt to find out with checks than just having them sign a disclaimer. No?
2. How does this absolve PTK from the past thirty years of not using background checks (since you wrote "instigating" which I understand as something 'new') if one of their previous instructors or student's student commits a knife related crime
You understand correctly. It doesn't absolve anyone from the past. It's a new measure for a new time. Post 9/11. Taking some responsibility for what we teach and whom we teach it to is not a bad thing. It's not a "secret society" thang as I believe you commented to at some point in the past.
Now, this may have been just a rumor, but I read something about an instructor down in Florida who supposedly taught some blade techniques to one (unknowingly) of the hijackers. If true, a background check might have raised some red flags on this individual. I state again, that may have just been a rumor.
3. Wouldn't this 'instigation' also fall into the marketing agenda I referred to earlier?
Now that PTK has 'instigated' background checks, it is rather convenient that it's now of some concern to presume OTHERs are not doing likewise? I found the question moot since one has to assume background checks weren't being done by anyone else.
Umm, maybe if your paranoid. You can view it as "convenient" if you like. My understanding is that it was something that had been discussed for a while now. I can't say whether others are or aren't. Just in my experience, I haven't run into, nor heard of, any other systems that are. You can paint it anyway you like.
Here's where our idealogies possibly separate William.
Not really, we are on par for most of the points you list.
Now...
The criminal doesn't care about checks.
True. But then again they wouldn't likely be learning anything from us then.
They can already kill a majority of the unarmed populace with a blade.
True. But they are always looking for an edge. And they could certainly find it in the FMA's. There was someone on the E-Digest a while back who was trying to get information on techniques to pass on to someone who turned out to be in prison. I'll have to go back into the archives and find it.
The only check LEOs have is to learn how to survive a knife attack.
The only check they have to "LEARN"? Your right, that's why we work with them.
Any other check is mere surface ornament
I disagree. LEO's will take any advantage (however small) they can get to help them ahead and stay alive.
From the mindset of a Feeder based system like Sayoc Kali:
Don't worry about what the criminal knows.
Accept that they are the BEST there is and then go from that.
You don't have much time otherwise.
And any other system worth their salt. Always train as if your going against someone with more skill.
It starts to look like a marketing campaign or what could be called a defensive marketing strategy...
We can certainly invalidate it by relegating it to paranoia
Raf, your a smart guy, but you need to get out more.
Summary: (IMHO)
*Take a bit of responsibility in whom you pass knowledge onto.
*Background checks, maybe not 100%, but a responsible step in the right direction. Beyond that it's intuition and gut instinct based on observation and physical interaction. Not something your going to get over video training.
*Always looking to give LEO's and civilians an edge by giving them the best training possible.
*Video training alone...not good, especially for a beginner to learn from.
*Seminars...have their place but....
*Nothing beats daily/weekly hands on training when your coming up the ranks.
*Friction between individuals in Sayoc and Pekiti....apparent.
*Anyone with a blade is dangerous and can kill. More skill makes them more dangerous (even to defenders with skill).
*Criminals are always looking for an edge. As FMA's become more prevalent, it's more likely criminal elements will look into it.
William
Comment