Category: Fieldcraft
In all states of which I am aware, a person may not use deadly force in self-defense, if they provoked the attack with the intent of using deadly force.
It is not legal to start a fight so the person who started the fight can kill someone who they provoked.
Mere possession of an openly carried weapon is not a legal provocation to attack.
The Left has been floating the idea that mere possession of a weapon is a provocation. They contend the sight of someone in possession of a weapon is sufficient provocation for a person to attack the person who possesses the weapon.
This creates a bizarre world where mere open possession of a weapon is sufficient to justify a deadly attack on the possessor. Apply this to the police. They almost always carry a deadly weapon, openly.
This concept is contrary to common sense and the experience of thousands of years. If a person has a weapon, people see a reason to leave the armed person alone. In the Kyle Rittenhouse incident, the prosecutor, ADA Binger, during a pre-trial hearing, said this:
“He was running around with a assault rifle type weapon, a very threatening, aggressive weapon. One that deters people, it is designed to deter people. It is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got.”
During the trial. Binger did not claim mere possession of a firearm was a provocation to be attacked, although he hinted at it. He claimed, on the basis of very fuzzy drone footage, that Kyle had momentarily pointed his rifle at two other people, and that was a provocation for a third person, Rosenbaum, to attack Kyle. The jury did not accept this theory.
In a sane world, carrying a weapon is not a provocation to be attacked. The Left has worked hard to make it a provocation, in law. In an editorial about open carry in 2012, there was this; from usnews.com:
It is appropriate for law enforcement officers and the public to treat these situations as extremely dangerous. Open carry advocates claim they need a gun for self-defense. However, if the Trayvon Martin case has taught us anything, it is that an individual carrying a gun may misjudge a situation, think self-defense is called for, and erroneously—and often tragically—reach for the gun.
A jury decided the usnews.com editorial writer’s portrayal of the Trayvon Martin case was erroneous. It was Martin who attacked George Zimmerman. It was Martin’s judgment that was faulty, not Zimmerman’s.
Here is an opinion published in The Hill, in November of 2019, before the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. The opinion is discussing the Wisconsin disorderly conduct law. From thehill.com:
The text of its disorderly conduct law criminally bans “violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.” But absent a showing of “criminal or malicious intent,” a person may not be charged with disorderly conduct “for carrying or going armed with a firearm . . . without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm . . . is concealed or openly carried.”
Think about that. Being publicly “violent” or “abusive” is a potential crime in Wisconsin — unless it entails waiving around a loaded firearm.
The argument is false. The law does not allow being publicly “violent” or “abusive” simply because a person has a firearm. It states a person may not be charged with disorderly conduct for merely carrying or possessing a firearm or knife. Here is the relevant passage:
Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading a firearm, or for carrying or going armed with a firearm or a knife, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or the firearm or the knife is concealed or openly carried.
This correspondent followed what led to the passage of this Wisconsin law. In 2008 Brad Krause was planting a tree in his yard. He had a holstered pistol on his hip. He was charged, in Wisconsin, by West Allis police, with disorderly conduct. He fought the case. He won. From jsonline.com:
West Allis – As Brad Krause planted a tree in his yard last summer, a neighbor noticed that in addition to a shovel, Krause had a tool not usually required for yard work – a gun in a holster.
Police arrived and gave Krause a ticket alleging disorderly conduct, launching a case that a national gun-rights group has been watching for months.
On Tuesday, Krause won acquittal in what some advocates say is one of the first so-called open-carry gun cases heard in a Wisconsin court.
Municipal Judge Paul Murphy said he had reviewed several state statutes and court cases related to the right to keep and bear arms. ‘There being no law whatsoever dealing with the issue of an unconcealed weapon or the so-called open carry is why we’re here today,’ Murphy said.
In the end, he determined Krause’s actions did not rise to disorderly conduct and found him not guilty.
Milwaukee Police had been charging people with disorderly conduct for the mere carry of firearms, for decades. The legislature finally had enough and reformed the law to stop the abuse.
Here is a later opinion published on September 10, 2020, from Bloomberg, written by Noah Feldman a former Harvard Law editor:
The trouble begins when you start applying the legal rules to someone in Rittenhouse’s situation, namely, someone who has carried an AR-15-style weapon to what is intended to be a peaceful protest. In a commonsense universe, this act itself would appear to be a provocation.
Yet under Wisconsin law, adults are entitled to carry around their licensed firearms in public places. An open-carry law means that prosecutors would have a tough time convincing a jury that simply carrying an assault rifle counts as a provocation.
As a lawyer, Feldman should have known Wisconsin law does not require a license to openly carry firearms. It never has. Wisconsin law has never forbidden people 16 years old and older, from carrying long guns.
To paraphrase Noah Feldman with a more commonsense observation; the trouble is when you start defining the peaceful carry of a firearm as a provocation. Hundreds of people saw Rittenhouse and many others carrying firearms. Initially, only Rosenbaum decided to attack Kyle Rittenhouse. The person who was supposedly “provoked” was mentally ill Rosenbaum, who was suicidal and who had spent many years in prison.
Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse repeatedly. If there was a provocation, it appears the provocation was Rosenbaum attempting to provoke Rittenhouse to aid in another Rosenbaum suicide attempt.
Three others decided to attack Rittenhouse as he ran to turn himself into the police after he shot Rosenbaum. According to testimony under oath during the trial, the mob was urged to attack Rittenhouse by the same man who had urged Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse.
The man who urged the mob to go after Rittenhouse had a checkered police record. The three attackers had multiple police histories and problems with authority. Two of the those attacked Rittenhouse with weapons and were shot by him. One was killed, and the other was wounded. It was all recorded on video, from multiple angles.
The jury did not accept the prosecutor’s theory that Rittenhouse had “provoked” Rosenbaum.
Analysis:
The concept that an openly armed person is a provocation to attack appears to flow from a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.
Evidence for this theory exists in the left’s theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violent, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech.
When leftists surround a car and beat on it; that is not provocation; when leftists shoot at people; it is not provocation; when people the left does not agree with, display weapons; that is considered a provocation by the left.
This is a retreat to tribalism by the Left: Those who agree with us are people; those who disagree with us are the enemy.
Pundit and radio personality Dan Bongino put it this way: Conservatives think leftists are people with bad ideas; Leftists think Conservatives are bad people.
Part of this attitude toward the open carry of weapons by people other than government agents comes from the Left’s worship of government as god. A private person openly carrying a firearm is a direct and obvious statement:
The Constitution means something; the Bill of Rights means something; the power of government is limited.
The Left hates the idea of limits on government. For that reason, gun control is in Progressivism’s DNA.
Defining open carry of weapons as a legal provocation is Orwellian word manipulation.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
By Jack Kerwick
Since the horrible summer of 2020, crime has risen precipitously in cities throughout the United States. This alone should be sufficient to convince decent American citizens to train in self-protection. Those interested in doing so should be cautious, however, lest they fall victim to, as Richard Feynman referred to it, “the ignorance of experts.”
It doesn’t take much of a critical eye to discern that the overwhelming majority of the martial arts instructors on YouTube convey, at best, mixed messaging. At worst, they are demoralizing.
In any event, they set their students up for failure.
A particularly instructive illustration of this phenomenon is a recent exchange between two skilled martial artists, former Navy Seal Jocko Willink and Tim Kennedy, an Army Ranger. Kennedy was a guest on Willink’s podcast. A viewer asked the two special operators how a “non-fighter” should train for self-defense.
The host turned the query over to his guest. “Anything is better than nothing,” Kennedy insisted. Even “CrossFit training,” given its self-defense component, is a viable option. While there is no right or wrong course of action to take when it comes to training in self-defense, there are “degrees of better.”
For Kennedy, one can’t go wrong with the “foundational martial arts”: wrestling, boxing, Muay Thai, and Jiu-Jitsu. Elaborating, he said: “You know, you step up against a guy that has a little bit of knowledge in any one of those . . . they’re a pain in the ass. And if he has a little bit [of knowledge] in all of them or he’s really good at one of them? Just kiss your ass goodbye. You’re going to sleep.”
Willink unequivocally agreed. Yet he also informed his sizable audience that they already have a “natural defense,” which is to “run away.” If someone comes at me and “you’ve got a knife, or whatever,” Willink said, “I’m going to run from you. It’s OK. It’s defense. I’m being defensive. I’m running away from you.”
Kennedy replied: “I 100 percent agree with you.” He added that if someone came up to him and demanded that he give him his wallet, Kennedy would reply: “You’ve got to catch me first.”
Kennedy and Willink are representative of an attitude that pervades the contemporary world of martial arts. While martial artists generally, and Tim Kennedy and Jocko Willink specifically, are good guys, the attitude they’re exhibiting isn’t just lamentable—it’s outrageous. It’s outrageous because decent human beings, recognizing, as they do, the Kennedys and Willinks of the world as authorities on the subject of self-protection, turn to them for assistance in helping them surmount their own fears of being preyed upon.
Their advice is terrible, in more ways than one.
A capable martial arts instructor must ask and answer for himself the following questions:
1) What is a martial art?
Let’s get back to basics and remind ourselves that “martial,” as in martial art, means “of or pertaining to war.”
War.
The martial arts, then, are, historically and etymologically, the arts of war.
Martial arts instructors, then, have a singular task vis-à-vis their students: They must instill martial prowess, i.e. the skill and the will to incapacitate the enemy by whatever means necessary. The violence for which a student of a real martial art trains is the violence that is necessary to prevail in a conflict that could become lethal.
2) What is the context within which martial arts students will prepare themselves to use violence?
Given the definition of a martial art, the only appropriate mode of training is one that prepares students to unleash violence within the context of a potentially life-threatening attack launched by a determined assailant against innocents, whether those innocents are students themselves, their loved ones, or other innocents who can’t fend for themselves.
Put another way, martial arts students should not be training for duels, matches, contests, bar fights, or street brawls. They should not train to brawl at all. Like soldiers, students of the martial arts should train to dispatch potentially homicidal assailants with ruthless efficiency.
Students pursuing self-protection training in a martial art should be trained to encounter, not “opponents” but, rather, “enemies.”
There are only enemies, anti-humans who have divested themselves of their humanity by choosing instead to become bipedal predators who feed off of the blood of innocents.
3) Against whom am I preparing students to use the skills that I instill in them?
To repeat the last point: Students should be training to become as capable as possible of destroying the enemy. And the enemy is anyone who won’t think twice about raping, robbing, bludgeoning, and murdering innocents in order to get what he wants.
Let’s put this another way: Students are not training to win contests. They’re not training for sport. The enemy is not likely to be an athlete, a boxer, or another martial artist. Nor should students be training to kick the ass of some guy who is acting like a douchebag.
In other words, boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu—the arts Tim Kennedy and Jocko Willink recommend for those who are interested in learning self-protection—presuppose a context fundamentally other than the context of a martial art, the context of war. They presuppose an opponent, someone with whom one can “square off” or with whom it is safe to go to the ground. This assumption is at once wholly intelligible and appropriate within the context of a sport. It couldn’t be more inappropriate, more dangerous, within the context of a possibly deadly confrontation, of war.
As far as grappling is concerned, most of the pioneers of World War II close-quarter combatives were grapplers. So too were many of their students. And yet they have always insisted, forcefully and repeatedly, that the ground is the last place to which one wants to go in a real violent confrontation—however masterful a “ground game” one may have achieved. The ground, given its solidity and the potential it has to be uneven and strewn with debris and broken glass, isn’t remotely as accommodating as a mat in a dojo. And considering the likelihood that the enemy could have a weapon and/or fellow belligerents waiting in the wings to whom a defender will be that much more vulnerable while on the ground, training in a grappling art leaves much to be desired for the only kind of (non-sportive) confrontation for which decent civilian adults should ever prepare.
When we turn to the standing arts, things are not much better. The conventional fighting stance that students of boxing and many other martial arts are taught to assume reinforces this fiction—an invidious fiction—that it is some single opponent against whom they’ll be “squaring off.” Yet squaring off, putting up one’s dukes, is likely to be neither necessary nor desirable against a scumbag or gang of scumbags who are resolved to cave in the side of your skull with a crowbar or a tire iron, or who sucker strikes you in the back of your head with a rock.
The point is that the only type of violent transaction for which it is both morally and legally permissible for adults to engage occurs everywhere but comes from nowhere. It is a life or death situation, whether or not the assailant or assailants intend to extinguish the lives of their targets. There’s nothing sporty or organized about it.
Since microseconds count, it should be obvious that there is no time for a person targeted to square off. Not only is it not likely that there would be time to do so while under attack. Even if there was time to do so, it would be a waste of time, for it takes more time to stand in a guard position and then strike than it takes just to strike!
And by throwing up the hands in front of one’s head and face prior to pre-empting the enemy’s assault, one renders exponentially more difficult to sustain any argument from self-defense one may try making upon severely injuring or killing an assailant. This is because if one had time to assume a conventional fighting stance, then, presumably, one had time to walk away or otherwise diffuse the confrontation. In squaring off, one consents to “fight.”
Again, in a ring or within the context of sport, this makes sense. In the context of self-protection, it most assuredly does not.
So, to put it simply and contrary to Tim Kennedy’s suggestion, a person is not likely to be violently attacked by a practitioner of boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, or Jiu Jitsu. One must train accordingly.
4) To whom will I impart this training?
The people most likely to pursue training in an art of war for the sake of defending themselves and their loved ones generally possess various peculiar characteristics.
First, while they may be of any age, those who are seeking training in a combat art tend to be older. Since they want to learn how to maximize their odds of being able to successfully defend themselves within their unique bodies, they are not aiming to compete, so styles and systems that specialize in flashy, choreographed, but largely impractical techniques are not going to appeal to them.
Second, they are not, then, likely to be especially athletic, if they’re athletic at all. Every drill, every habit sown, must be conducive to the end of making students ever more efficient at neutralizing those who would prey upon them.
Third, they are most definitely not troublemakers. They don’t need their instructor to repeatedly warn them against using the skills they acquire in their training for nefarious or otherwise illegitimate purposes.
Nor do they need to have the very fears that motivated them to pursue martial training in the first place reinforced by the people—their instructors—to whom they turn for help in surmounting their fears!
What this means is that instructors who go about with a long face, as if they lament having to train their students in the use of violence, who indiscriminately (without any attention paid to circumstances) tell their students to run, and who deluge them with ominous tales of the “prison-trained monsters” up against whom they may come further ensconce the anxieties, and possibly the trauma, that motivated their students to take up the study of self-protection.
They do their students a grave injustice by failing to deliver the goods.
5) What motivates people psychologically to pursue training in martial arts?
To reiterate the last point, it is fear, the fear of not being able to successfully defend oneself and one’s loved ones from verminous bipedal predators that fundamentally accounts for why your average person, particularly your average adult, takes up the study of a martial art. This being the case, instructors have an obligation to help their students manage and channel that fear for the purpose of annihilating the enemy, if the occasion should ever demand this course of action.
Instructors who fail to know their students by strengthening this fear fail their students.
6) How will I do right by my students in satisfying this longing?
Instructors fulfill their calling by refusing to peddle fear porn consisting of tales of invincible bad guys, life imprisonment for decent people who defend themselves and their loved ones from the bad guys, and orders to run from the bad guys!
Yet they have a duty to do more. Martial arts instructors need to spare no occasion to instill in their students both the physical skill and, critically, the moral will, the mental focus, to excise from the planet like the malignant cancer they are, any and all who would imperil the innocent.
Period.
The enemy is not invincible. He’s mortal. Whatever his race, religion, or tribe, and whether he is a drug kingpin, a terrorist, a mafia hitman, a gangbanger, or an ex-con—the enemy bleeds, breaks, and dies.
He can be critically injured, maimed, and killed.
Instructors should continually remind their students of this axiomatic truth. Students of the martial arts, specifically, the arts of war, don’t need to be told how dangerous such lowlifes are (as if they would go around looking to pick “fights” with these types, or any types, once they got a little training in a warrior art under their belt!). They need to have it drilled into them that the godless are not only mortal but will in fact be forced to come to terms with their mortality if the evil are ever so stupid as to attack them!
This is the martial spirit. We need more of it in the world of martial arts.
And those American citizens who are willing to assume responsibility for their own protection by pursuing the study of a genuinely martial art should take care to seek out an instructor who has asked and answered the foregoing questions.
Categories
Top 3 Self-Defense Myths Busted
Categories
Top 3 Self-Defense Myths Busted
Sorry but this film does not want to be up loaded. So here is the address & just upload it. Grumpy