I made the acquaintance of Dr. Jerome Barber early in 1988 while attending Erie Community College in Buffalo, NY.  I had heard that Dr. Barber had a small group of students training in Kenpo and Arnis on campus.  At that particular point in time, I wanted to learn more about Arnis and asked to join the group.   The training I received was uncommonly good and would take me in a direction that I hadn’t gone with any other instructor. 

The instruction that my fellow students and I received was quite different from the traditional martial arts (TMA) training I had received previously.  We weren’t required to wear uniforms or call Dr. Barber sensei or guro, as he simply preferred to be called by his given name.  This however, wasn’t the only thing that set that training apart from the traditional training I had experienced earlier on.  Dr. Barber’s approach to teaching was markedly different as well.   Instead of following the typical TMA learning paradigm of “learn a form - earn a belt,” Dr. Barber taught conceptually Dr. Barber identified the core concepts of the training and illustrated the interrelationship between those key concepts.  The instructional program was focused on development functional skills rather than perfection of high kicks and kata, and it was structured in a way that introduced more advanced material as quickly as students could absorb the material. 

The most significant aspect of training with Dr. Barber was that he provided information on Article 35 of the New York State Penal Code, which defines what the appropriate and responsible use of physical force for self defense.  He felt that it was his responsibility as an instructor to not only teach us practical self defense skills but to impart an understanding that in our litigious society, we are responsible for our actions and held accountable under the law.   He also introduced us to the concept of vicarious liability and taught us to be responsible in how and what we teach.  At the time, I was shocked by the idea that I could be held responsible for something my student did to someone else.  In today’s litigious society there are living examples of instructors who taught his students “street lethal” martial arts is found legally responsible in a civil court for damages done to a “victim” by one of his students in a physical confrontation.

In 1991, I left Buffalo and joined the military.  As I progressed through my career as a military police professional, these same concepts of meeting force with appropriate force would be reinforced in the form of The Law of War, mandated rules of engagement, the use of force continuum (often called the ladder of force) and professional responsibility.  I continue Dr. Barber’s legacy by teaching “responsible action” in self defense.  From time to time I’m approached by a prospective student who wants learn “knife fighting” or has previously trained in some sort of “hard core, street lethal” martial art.  I fight the urge to laugh when they tell me the latter.  They are often disappointed because I reserve edged tool training for people that have earned my trust and my propensity to teach “less-than-lethal” self defense with a hit and run philosophy.  Most people come to understand the purpose of my conservative training methods but once in a while I get one of these “warriors” give me a blank stare and slight head tilt (like a confused puppy) when I explain the idea of the application of appropriate force for self defense.  Some even get insulted when I tell them that their previous instructor did them a great disservice by teaching them to commit unrestrained violence. 

(One of these clowns actually tried to tell me that his hands were registered as deadly weapons in Riverside, CA.  I almost spit my coffee out all over him.  When I was done laughing I invited him to go down to the local police station to “register his hands” so I could watch him get laughed out of the building.  He respectfully declined my invitation.) 

Many who study (and teach) martial arts seem to buy into the typical action movie scenario where the good guy martial artist takes on the bad guys (victims) on their turf and skillfully (and brutally) beats them into submission and destroying surrounding property in the process.  This scenario conveniently leaves out police involvement after the fact and possible criminal charges filed against the good guy because he went looking for trouble and brutally assaulted the “victims.”   There is also a convenient absence of civil suits filed against the good guy on behalf of property owners whose property was destroyed in the melee, the injured “victims” who, because of the severity their injuries, can no longer earn a living and the family of a “victim” who have filed civil suit against the good guy for the wrongful death of a beloved family member.           

(Yes, things like this really do happen.  I know someone who was assaulted in a parking lot outside of a pub.  My acquaintance successfully defended himself.  The police arrived and witnesses corroborated that the good guy acted appropriately.  After the assailant did a short stint in the county jail, the good guy was served with a civil law suit for damages to his assailant’s car, clothing and teeth, as well as lost time and wages on the job; all allegedly incurred during the assault that this person initiated.   Unfortunately, the good guy ended up paying for the damages to the assailant’s car.  The judge presiding over the case seemed to feel that it wasn’t necessary for the good guy to slam his assailant face first into his own car.)        

The underlying point of this blog entry is to encourage everyone who trains in any martial art, instructors and students alike, to research the laws that govern the acceptable (reasonable) use of force for self defense in their particular community.  Laws vary from state to state, and in some cases county to county or municipality to municipality.  This is fairly easy to do thanks to the advent of the internet.  Most states have their penal (criminal) and civil codes on-line usually on a government website, but major universities with law schools often have their state’s civil and penal codes in electronic format as well.  In addition to researching applicable laws governing the use of physical force, it is important to include what is considered a weapon and or dangerous/prohibited instrument under the law and how the law defines a “concealed weapon”.   

Of particular importance here is that there is no nationally accepted standard for use of force for self defense, and many states and municipalities differ greatly one another.  What may be considered justifiable action for self defense in Huston, Texas or Spokane, Washington may not be considered justifiable action in Los Angeles, New York City or Washington D.C.   In the absence of or unavailability of the information above, one can apply what is known as the “reasonable person standard.”  In most cases, when faced with aggression and diffusion or aversion either has not worked or not possible, a person is justified to exercise one’s inherent right to self defense.  The caveat to the use of physical force for self defense is that one must have a reasonable expectation (fear) of serious bodily harm.  One may meet force with equal force. However, this must be done with restraint.  By restraint, I don’t mean gently or softly.   Restraint in this case refers to applying only the type and amount of force necessary to stop the attack on one’s person gain control the situation.  One must recognize when the aggressor is no longer threat, stop one’s own action and disengage - i.e., get away, far away, from the site of the confrontation.