Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Wow!  This sounds like a lot of torture that might be effective,
    and might not be.  Why not learn to use a gun.  If you have to defend
    yourself, there is no better way.  Just as the rape issue is fraught
    with misconceptions, folklore, and outright inaccuracies, so too
    are firearms.
    
    I think you would do well to explore this.  Of course there is a
    difference between knocking someone out permanently and for 12 minutes,
    but I would vote for the permanent solution.  That way it won't
    happen again.
    
    Perhaps the most striking thing to me is how quickly a "big tough"
    assailant backs down when confronted.  My sister, whom I taught
    to use and armed with a derringer, once had this experience in a
    parking lot.  She was not raped, nor did she have to fire a shot.
    She did get to watch a big guy run.
    
    /Len
    

	To use a gun, you must be prepared to kill.  I would prefer to
	use alternate methods first.  No matter how much they deserve to
	die, I don't deserve to go through the possible trauma of having
	taken a life.  Maybe it would be better for me to kill the attacker,
	I just don't know myself well enough.

	...Karen

    
     This has been talked about to some degree back about 50 notes or
     so. As a small arms expert, instructor, ect ect for the military,
     I have done both firearms familiarization and self defense courses
     to military police. 
    
     One of the most important questions I pose to every class is that
     if in a extremis situation do you feel confident that you could
     use the firearm against another human being. I have had both men
     and women come back to me after thinking about it and say no.
    
     For this I respect them, for it is a hard question with far reaching
     consequences. I would much rather have them say that and reasign
     them a non firearms related job, then have them out in the street,
     freeze up with doubt and get them selves killed. Worse in that
     the assailant would disarm them and turn it around and use the gun
     on them, or someone else. 
    
    The same applys to any civilian on the street. As both Ian Philphot,
    myself and a few others can atestafy to there are some fairly easily
    learned methods that can be used to disable or even kill an attacker
    without a gun or knife. These are far better technics for those
    that are uncomfortable with a gun.
    
                                         Bob B 

    ...and you don't have to try and fish the &�@@%! gun out when
    you need it.
    							Ann B.

    I teach self-defense clinics for such groups as Womens' Clubs, Senior
    Citizens, young children, etc. and I am happy to see this program
    being taught.
    
    I can tell you that, having been trained in a non-contact martial
    arts style, you can experience that "Do I follow through NOW?" state
    of mind when a real "situation" comes up.
    
    This program sounds very good, and I applaud both it and the people
    who go thru it.
    
    Jane
    

According to the Boston Globe, Model Mugging has come to Boston.
The course costs $350 and meets for a total of 24 hours over a
two-week period.  Summer courses begin on July 19 and July 25;
call (617) 369-2220 for information.

Martin.

    This seems quite a high price for such a limited amount to time.
    Well, I thought so at first. That's actually about $14.58 an hour.
    Music lessons are probably that much today.
    
    The advantage I see here is that women are put, voluentarily, into
    a violent but controlled enviroment that they can walk away from
    if they give up. That makes quite a difference.
    
      Mikie?

	I am a male who thinks that all rapist should be castrated at the
	very least...HOWEVER....



	The problem with learning a technique to the point where you can
	instinctively counter-attack and render somebody unconciuos for 
	12 minutes, is that that technique can also be used to kill somebody.

	Over here in the U.K. a woman had been taught such a method that she 
	used when a man 'attempted' to rape her. She successfully repulsed her
	attacker to the point that he died of internal and head injuries. 

	While in court, facing a charge of murder, she was told that since
	their had been no witnesses and that she wasn't marked, she had
	no evidence that the man had tried to mug/rape her. Her defence that
	her training had meant that her reaction was instinctive, wasn't
	accepted by the court ...

	She is now doing a 15 year prison sentence for murder.

	Paul.

    
    Its sad to see that the stupidity of the judicial system is 
    not limited to this country alone. One day, hopefully the 
    people who make laws and pass judgment on them will stop 
    making the law work in favor of the criminals instead of 
    the victims.  
    
                          Bob B
     

    Re .8
    
    What motive did the woman possibly have to kill this particular man.
    How can they convict this woman of murder without explaining why
    she would want to kill him.  If I were to look at the statistics
    I might see a lot of cold-blooded murder by men on other men or
    women but I bet I would find very few by women upon men.  How
    did the prosecution establish that this woman was so unique.
    
    					MJC O->

(Perhaps this string could be moved to a separate note?)

In general, you are permitted to use only force consistent with
the nature of the attack.  I.e., if some kids hit a baseball
through your front window, you aren't permitted to go after them
with a shotgun.

For example, in some countries (Sweden is one), the police are expected to
hold their fire until they are actually shot at, or until a clear
life-or-death situation arises. 

While I have no knowledge of the actual situation, I could well
imagine that the court might have felt that the woman's reaction
was excessive as she

-- hadn't clearly been in a life-or-death situation (she was not
   marked by the struggle).

-- hadn't controlled the force of her attack.

I.e, the court could well have decided that the "instinctive" nature
of her training made her a danger to society.

I'm suprised that a more sensible defense ("I tried to disable him
without killing him, but he fought back and I slipped, ...") wasn't
tried.

There are obvious parallels to the recent Goetz case.

Martin.

    re .9:
    
    > ...will stop making the law work in favor of the criminals 
    > instead of the victims.
    
    I like to see the system work in favor of the _accused_ rather than
    the _accuser_. Using "criminal" and "victim" distorts ones perspective
    of the situation.
    
    This is the great "problem" with the presumption of innocence.
    People see "obvious" criminals exploiting the system and get outraged.
    Yet what about the people who are innocent yet get charged anyway?
    
    Would you rather hang a hundred innocent persons to insure hanging
    the one guilty, or would you rather insure that the innocent does
    not hang at the risk of letting a hundred guilty go free?
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

        Although we can all sympathize with the rape victim and concur
        that the rapist needs to be treated severely, it is reasonable
        to come up with some sort of homicide charge in a case where the
        accused admits to killing someone, there are no witnesses and no
        evidence that the victim was attacking the defendant.
        
        A basic problem with violence or counter-violence is that it is
        very drastic and can get out of your control. Violence can lead
        to more violence and to the involvement of the law. If the case
        that we've read about is as it appears to be, it would seem that
        the alleged rapist found that violence that he attempted
        escalated and killed him. On the other hand, the woman who
        defended herself with violence found that the repercussion of
        using violence when no-one can attest to the circumstances can
        be jail. She also found that what she had intended to be merely
        incapacitaing violence turned into lethal violence. 
        
        When you use violence either to attack or to defend, you must
        realize that it may get out of hand. 
        
        JimB.

	The problem (if it is one) in Britain is that, and correct me if
	I'm wrong, there is no clear definition of Justafiable Homocide.

	The woman _didn't_ get charged with 1st degree Murder (ie Pre-
	meditated), but _was_ charged with murder.

	_ALL_ killings are termed as unlawful over here, and _all_ fall
	under the Murder charge. Ever Manslaughter which, if I remember
	correctly, is called 5th degree Murder.

	For example. If in Britain, and man attempted to rape a woman and
	the woman retaliated by shooting him dead. She would face a charge
	of 2nd Degree Murder at the least, due to the fact that the gun was
	a sign of pre-meditation.

	The man in America who shot the muggers in your underground, would
	have been put away for life here in the U.K.

	All in all, what I'm saying is that - YES, I believe in the right
	for a woman or a man to defend themselves, but that defence has
	to be of the minimum sort to facilitate escape. If the assailant
	is knocked to the ground, in the UK, you are supposed to run away
	instead of kicking him/her in the head.

	Paul.

�< Note 374.2 by CADSYS::SULLIVAN "Karen - 225-4096" >
�                         -< what if I couldn't kill? >-
�
�	To use a gun, you must be prepared to kill.  I would prefer to
�	use alternate methods first.  

        I both agree and disagree with this statement.
        
        I have participated in this sort of training (and disagree that
        it is "unique"), as well as training people in various "dirty tricks".
        However whilst the techniques can be easily learned, one thing they
        all have in common: to hit somebody hard enough with any weapon
        (including parts of your body) to guarantee disabling them, you
        almost certainly have to be mentally prepared to kill them.
        
        This is as true of unarmed combat as it is of the use of knives
        or guns.
        
        Take the "classic karate chop" which to most lay people is a chop
        using the "hand sword" technique to the side of the neck. Delivered
        with too little force this will not stop the assailant. Delivered
        with just the right amount you will induce unconsciousness. Delivered
        full power by a skilled proponent of the art and the assailant dies
        instantly.
        
        If you cannot bring yourself to that state of readiness then you
        will almost certainly fail to hit hard enough (flinching and so
        "pulling" the blow).
        
        There are many techniques designed to stop an opponent without inducing
        unconsciousness. But it appears that this training does not teach
        them.
        
        In conclusion let me repeat: any blow that can induce instant
        unconsciousness will if applied hard enough kill. To be sure of
        achieving the former you must learn to strive for the latter.
        There are several Chinese/Japanese/Korean martial arts that are
        designed to defeat an opponent without the use of strength or inducing
        unconsciousness (and amazingly enough they are usually, traditionally,
        taught to women).
        
        /. Ian .\

	Is a victum to assume that perhaps the mugger wants to have
	a chat? Usually men a heavier and bigger and perhaps she only
	has one chance? Was she supposed to be fully rational and think:
	"Let me see I better hit him hard enough to make him unconsious
	but not too much to kill - Oh yes better contact my laywer
	to see what is legal". Really is this what you do in a
	possible life and death situations where seconds count?
	It seems her mistack was to get some bruises on her; around
	the neck would have been convincing.

	Is there anyone out there who such a situation enlighten us?

	>Was she supposed to be fully rational and think:
	>...I better hit him hard enough to make him unconsious
	>but not too much to kill 

I've been threatened four times.  First time, a teenage mugger grabbed me 
and tried to throw me to the sidewalk.  We wrestled for a while, no weapons 
on either side and he ran away. I stayed mad for a long time. Since that 
time, whenever in 'unsafe' places, I've carried a sharp pencil/pen in my 
hand. Stabbed unarmed strangers in the arm twice when they grabbed me --- 
then I ran like hell and they didn't follow. Whew! (Once, 3am in the subway,
a 70-yr old drunk kept trying to 'embrace' me and I kept pushing him off 
and left the knife and the teargas in my pocket: he wan't dangerous.)

THEN, my sweetie and I stopped to admire a small, fascinating, isolated,
old house in the country and while standing on the highway, 40 feet from
the front door, we heard the rifle cock. An old man stood inside the front
door and told us to get the *** back in our car or he would shoot us. And I
*knew* he meant it and I was terrified. I felt dizzy walking to the car. 
 
Looking back, I realized the old man was the only one who *clearly* 
threatened violent injury.  Can you fight someone while in  
a total state of terror?  I could barely open the car door. (Turns out, the
old man had killed several people in the coal wars of the 20's and still 
feared reprisals. My friend and I still believe he was going to shoot.) 

    The British case may well be a potential rathole: an earlier note said
    that British law has no definition of justifiable homicide (if I remember
    correctly). This is not true - there is a definition of justifiable
    homicide, the point is that it is not a valid defence in a criminal
    court.
    
    If a person is killed then a coroner's jury must decide whether the
    killing was justifiable or not. If they decide that the death was not
    justifiable then a prosecution may well follow. Once the case comes
    to the criminal court the issue of justifable homicide has already been
    decided and eliminated.
    
    The killer may enter a defence of either self defence, or of involuntary
    manslaughter. Self defence is defined as the use of necesary but minimally
    sufficient force to prevent the assailant injuring or killing the
    defendant. By age old convention this precludes the use of more lethal
    weapons (a gun when attacked with a knife) or superior skills (a skilled
    boxer or martial artist must formally warn the assailant of their skill,
    and use only the very minimum force to deflect the attack and allow
    the victim to escape). Entering a plea of no contest by virtue
    of involuntary manslaughter is effectively a plea bargain.
    
    In the case alluded to (which I am not familiar with, but I do know
    of several other similar cases), the typical line of the court is that
    excessive force was used, and hence the definition of self defence is
    exceeded: therefore the killing is unlawful. The absence of premeditation
    eliminates the possibility of "first degree" guilt, but none-the-less
    even involuntary manslaughter requires punishment. Had the death been
    the result of a single blow of excessive force I would have expected
    a suspended sentence or even probation. That a long jail sentence was
    imposed seems to suggest a little more than the brief details given
    state: perhaps the "victim" went berzerk and rained blows on the mugger
    far beyond that required to allow her to run away?   
    
    In the days when Britain had Grand Juries most such cases would be filtered
    out. Now they go to trial, and the results may not be so fair long term.
    However having sat on a couple of juries I must say that the feeling
    for the case you get when you hear all the evidence is often frighteningly
    different from that obtained by reading [frequently biassed] newspaper
    reports.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

        From my experience, there is very little chance of the victim
        assuming that the mugger wants to have a chat. You may misread
        the signals of a purse or necklace snatcher, but a mugger is
        quite readily detectable. I didn't mean by my earlier note on
        the possible outcomes of violence that violence must never be
        used, just that you have to realize what the possible outcomes
        of violence are.
        
        A phrase in .16 tells a good deal of the story. The author asks
        what should you do "in a possible life and death situation where
        seconds count?" The key phrase is a *possible* life and death
        situation. Many muggings and robberies are not life and death.
        However, when violence is introduced, a situation can become
        life or death, and very quickly. This is what you have to
        realize. If you respond to a threat with violence it may start a
        cycle of escalation. Before you do that you want to be sure
        that it is warranted and that you are willing to follow through.
        
        The result is, as Ian said, don't engage in violence unless you
        are willing to kill. If you do, you may get to a kill or be
        killed situation and freeze. That's it. You're dead. No learning
        from that mistake. 
        
        Further, you need to be able to gauge whether a threatening
        situation is truely dangerous or merely threatening. Is your
        violence warranted? If you introduce violence into a situation
        that was not going to turn violent you have increased your
        risk, not decreased it.
        
        However, the plain fact is that if you are unaccustomed to it,
        the "fight or flight" reflex and the adrenaline rush of a
        suddenly dangerous situation can incapacitate you. This may be
        where boys have an advantage over girls. Violence is
        traditionally something that small boys have to deal with, not
        violence ofthe life or death caliber, but extremely frightening
        none the less. This gives them the chance to learn not to
        freeze, to learn to flee, or to learn to fight, and to learn
        which is appropriate. 
        
        Now I don't recommend getting picked on or trying to develope
        experience dealing in violence. You might, however, consider
        taking up a sport or hobby that can really get your juices
        flowing. There are lots of ways to pit yourself against the
        powerful and awsome forces of nature, and to scare yourself and
        learn to deal with the fear and the exhileration. Learning to
        deal with reactions that can debilitate or cloud your judgment
        is crucial to dealing with violence. 
        
        Another thing you have to learn about violence is that it comes
        in different flavors. It can surprise, scare or anger. Making
        your attacker angry probably won't help. Similarly making them
        affraid when they feel trapped won't help either. If you can
        surprise them and buy time to escape or scare them into fleeing
        (or at least into letting you leave), then it may work. Finally,
        you can icapacitate, but that risks killing.
        
        The only time I was ever mugged, my wife and I were jumped by 6
        or 8 teen-aged inner city kids. I was carrying an open umbrella
        and wearing a hunting knife on my belt. The hunting knife stuck
        down into my pocket and trapped my wallet. I handed the umbrella
        to my wife and covered the pummel of the knife with my hand to
        keep it from being drawn. They were behind me and had me
        outnumbered. It was no time to initiate violence.
        
        The fellow who grabbed me from behind couldn't get my wallet
        out past the knife and my hand, but didn't realize the knife
        was there. I was terrified he would pull it out right behind
        my kidney. Selma pushed a couple of them away with the umbrella.
        The fellow at my back in frustration kidney-punched me to
        get my hand away from my wallet. I through myself forward
        and our combined actions threw me out of his grasp. I rolled
        and came up facing them.
        
        Another pulled out his heavy brass-buckled belt and started to
        swing it over his head. That was the time to think about
        violence--they'd introduced it. I suddenly produced the knife
        which I had drawn behind my back when I came up from the ground.
        I grinned evilly and said something like, "Come on--I've
        never seen intestines." cut at his shirt and immediately
        started a retreat with Selma still pushing the opened umbrella
        into the face of anyone who came near. They let us go.
        
        I can't say that any piece of what I did was unequivocally
        right, but it worked. I didn't let them have the upper hand,
        nor make them feel cornered. I did my damnedest to both scare
        and surprise them so that we could leave quickly. And I meant
        it. Out-numbered and defending my wife I'd have killed, no
        questions asked, if it had been necessary. I think the menace
        in my voice and eyes was very real. And you can't fake it,
        not reliably.
        
        I also called the police immediately, went through the mug book
        and drove around the area looking for the culprits. We never
        found them, but lots of people saw me in the police car. It
        happened in the neighborhood where we were living, and we were
        never threatened again. Others in our household were--once each
        and with similar results--determined resistance.
        
        JimB. 

    

    
     RE .12    No I would NOT as you put it hang a hundred innocent
               to get one guilty. BUT , I do definitely see a dramatic 
               need to change the laws to the extent that known, violent, 
               dangerous criminals stop walking free due to some
               technicality. And on the other side a person who is
               defending themselves get crucified for "overreacting" 

                                     Bob B
    

    	British law got to where it is after a long history.
    
    	Some years ago a person could take any actions they liked to
    defend themselves and their property. At that time there were large
    landowners, and almost starving farm labourers, and sometimes the
    farm labourer would think of poaching a rabbit or pheasant.
    
    	And sometimes the landowners would set man traps that would
    break a man's leg, and sometimes they would instruct their gamekeepers
    to shoot to kill. These were effective ways of protecting their
    property.
    
    	And it was always clear who the "criminal" was and who the "victim"
    was - the farm labourer was on someone else's land and had poaching
    equipment. (The gamekeeper would see to that, if necessary, before
    calling the police).
    
    	In the case quoted, what if he had killed her, and claimed to
    the court that she had tried to steal his wallet (or rape him?).
    There *are* violent female criminals, and there were no witnesses.
    Would you be as sympathetic? If not, are you *sure* you believe
    in sexual equality?
    
    	This is why, in British law, to get away with killing someone
    you have to provide fairly good evidence that there was a risk of
    them killing you first. It is no longer sufficient to prove that
    they were going to commit (or had committed) some other crime.

    -1
    
    True, there are violent female criminals.  It is also true that
    "violent" crimes are much more common among males than females.
     Most women are incarcerated for non-violent crimes.  So it would
    be hard for me to envision others as sexist in the way that you
    intimate.
    
    Melanie
    

    There is an article on Model Mugging in today's Boston Globe by
    Nina McCain of the Globe Staff.  It's on the front page of the
    Living/Atrs section and includes pictures (very interesting).
    Check it out.
    
    						MJC O->

    I am a self-admitted chicken, and I'm kind of nervous about taking
    a self-defense class, but I think it definitely would be in my best
    interests.  I am moving to LA in a couple of months, and I think
    I might be very afraid.  I think that just knowing that I took a
    class in defending myself might give me that little confidence boost
    to make me walk a little taller and feel a little more secure. 
    I feel lucky that I'm not a vulnerable-looking person, and that
    I do feel that I can take care of myself.  
    
    Are there any classes around here in the Maynard area for any less
    than $350?  I think I'd be interested.
    
    Stacie Watkins

    
    See .6 for Boston area classes.
    
    The director of the Boston area Model Mugging is Melissa Soalt;
    for more information, you could also write PO Box 772, Concord,
    Mass. 01742.
    
    The Middlesex News had a long (like full page) article on the course
    and a profile of one of the instructors. I'd be glad to run off
    a copy for anyone who wants one.
    
    Ed E.

    Moved by moderator
    
================================================================================
Note xxx.x                        Model Mugging                       
MEMORY::WALKER                                       47 lines   3-MAY-1988 14:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the past five Fridays, I've been taking a women's self-defense
    course called "Model Mugging," and I'd like to tell the women in
    Womannotes about it.
    
    Model Mugging is a powerful course in which women are trained, through
    repetitive practice, to deliver knockout blows to an attacker. 
    There is a female instructor and a male "mugger" who wears 60 pounds
    of protective gear, including a football helmet with additional
    padding and strong plastic webbing over mouth and eye holes.
    
    The course is really well thought out, and is a wonderful contradiction
    to years of conditioning that say women are powerless and cannot
    (should not?) defend ourselves.
    
    The primary techniques utilize the part of a woman's body where
    she is the strongest - her hips - in a series of kicks to the head
    and groin, usually from lying on the floor, where we all eventually
    end up if attacked.
    
    The course was developed 16 years ago, by a martial artist, in response
    to a brutal attack on one of his students who had a black belt in
    one of the martial arts, but was not able to protect herself.  When
    she could return to class, she said that she had failed them.  He
    said the failure was their's, not hers.
    
    All the instructors are also martial artists, but the training does
    not require great physical proficiency, nor does it seek in 21 hours
    to make MA's out of women.
    
    Of course, of the fifteen students in the class there was a wide
    variety of stories about past abuse, both in childhood and adulthood.
    
    The course can be difficult, both emotionally and physically, but
    it also expedites healing from past abuse because of its empowerment.
    All the women who started the course finished it.
    
    The course cost $350, is given in 5 nights (21 hours), and will
    next be offered in the Boston area through Interface (in Watertown, I 
    think).  You can be put on the mailing list by writing Model Mugging, 
    PO Box 31, Boston, MA 02199, or by phoning 617-482-4071.  I think it will
    also be offered separately in the summer.  I'd be glad to answer
    any questions sent directly to my node, over the next week, before
    I move on to my next assignment.
    
    With love,
    
    Briana

    Briana, how was your graduation?
    
    		[Sorry I missed it.  We missed you Thursday too.]
    
    							Lisa

Does anyone know if this course or something like it is offered in Colorado?

             Carol

    Carol,
    
    	There's a branch of Model Mugging in Boulder, CO (303) 442-1068
    (according to newsletter produced in California this spring).
    
    
    Pilar.