DBMA Martial Arts Forum > Martial Arts Topics
"Kali" player on trial for killing bouncer
toughman:
The bottom line is the guy was told the rules-no smoking- and he refused to obey and was escorted out- the bouncer was just doing his job. So the The martial arts practioners friend starts a confrontation and it ends with the murder of a working man. A group of men together and an unprovoked attack, with a knife from a coward. He had used his knife and skills in a horrendous manner.
Crafty_Dog:
Woof Tiny:
Did you know that "Tiny" was the nickname of the 6'5" 350lb bouncer?
Anyway:
"No kidding. I hate statements like this because they're misleading by stating the obvious as though it is covert. Personal protection knives are designed to injure and kill. That's it. That's the way it goes. So, to say that this blade has the appearance of a formidable weapon is a statement on the obvious intended only to make the defendent appear guilty of something."
Um, I may be wrong, but if NY law is anything like CA law, the carrying of a knife as a weapon is illegal, but it is OK to carry it as a tool. Seen in this light, the judge's comments make perfect sense. He is saying that the appearance of the knife negates any pretense of it being carried as a tool.
Furthermore, guilt was determined by a jury IIRC -- not the judge.
"So, basically, it's not a crime in the court of public opinion to own a deadly-looking knife, but if you actually use it, you run the risk of indictment as well as castigation by a judge? "
No, killing people (and no one contests that Umali killed Tiny) is what runs the risk of indictment , , , and conviction. And if the law says that carrying knives as tools is OK, but not as weapons, well then don't be surprised in appearance weighs in the equation at sentencing time.
We may wish the law to be different, (I do) but it is the judge's responsibility to apply the law.
"Now, do I think it wise to cart around a 6-in. serrated blade? Not really, but I'm sure some of the Sayoc people would agree that use and possession of a subjectively stated "deadly-looking" knife should not equal crime and conviction, especially if used appropriately -- heaven knows they all carry a variety of blades . Now, it may/may not have been used appropriately in this case...I wouldn't know, I wasn't there, but such portrayals of martial arts practitioners and weapons of protection can do very little to help those of us who do carry and use them honorably. Perhaps we should carry knives with cute little flowers on them so that they look less lethal? Or little, tiny, pink ones that we'd have to get r-e-a-l-l-y close to an assailant to use?"
I'm not sure of the relevance of the Sayoc reference here-- Umali was not their student-- and I have heard Tuhon Chris tell seminars more than once that he does not carry knives.
As to whether the knife was used appropriately in this case, that's what we have trials and juries for, and the defendant, after surviving his suicide attempt, was found guilty. The basic facts are not really in dispute here. What basis do you have for doubting the jury's verdict?
"I'm sorry, but all this nonsense about appearances and knives from individuals so unfamiliar with weapons and martial arts as to virtually make one or the other immediately criminal in public opinion makes me a tad peevish..."
I'm sorry too. I find your thoughts here very off-base. With a 6" serrated blade Umali killed a man by targeting his femoral artery. And for what? That his friends refused to put out cigarettes in a bar where the law prohibited smoking?!?
Why is it hard for you to say that this is profoundly wrong?
Crafty Dog
Tiny:
Crafty et.al,
I mention Sayoc only because in training multiple knives are strapped to the body at several points, and those students that I have met often carry multiple blades, not because Umali was in any way related to Sayoc per se. My apologies if it seemed otherwise.
As far as Umali killing the bouncer simply because he and a friend were bounced appears to be incorrect, at least in the sense of perspective. The original article noted that Umali pulled his blade after the bouncer had *not* simply bounced his friend but, after escorting him outdoors, had roughed him up and placed him in a choke hold (allegedly). Original articles indicated that several witnesses (some unrelated to Umali) became concerned over the welfare of this friend who could not breathe. It was also mentioned by a few witnesses that the bouncer continued to choke the friend after he was submissive and had stopped resisting/moving. If NY law is anything like CA law, that means that regardless of situation you are only allowed lethal force if the threat continues. Once the threat of personal injury/life has passed, it is not permissable to continue with lethal or harmful force. If that's what this bouncer did, he's in the wrong. Was Umali right in carrying a 6" serrated blade around? In my opinion that was, indeed, foolish.
However, what was continually emphasized in the media was, not only the size of the blade, but that Umali was trained in the "lethal art" of Kali. It was frequently mentioned and often the crux of some articles: some titles even read, "Man kills bouncer with dangerous, lethal martial art." The media was by no means negligent in expressing quite clearly how the ability to kill people with a knife was linked to the study of Kali. An interview with his instructor has indicated that Umali did not have extensive training, but instead, attended only a handful (if that) of classes. Unfortunately, his level of training was blown out of proportion. It seems to me that the lack of understanding of certain martial arts systems leads to incorrect assumptions about their honor and integrity. I fully believed that's what has happened here.
As for my comments about the judge's remarks regarding the knife, I can certainly see your point of view. With such perceptions of trained fighters, I worry greatly that one day, I may validly use a knife in protection and be convicted of a crime. The law is not always fair or balanced with regard to probablilty, especially when the general public may/may not have reliable information with regard to more obscure martial arts. My concern during this whole trial was simply the exaggerated nature concerning the portrayal of martial arts...not the right/wrongness of the defendant.
I am in no way defending Umali, but out of curiosity, haven't you ever, when faced with an assailant or potential threat, grabbed a weapon that might not have been technically legal? If you defended yourself with a questionable object (or even a "utility" knife) would you be comfortable being associated, in public, and in front of an uninformed jury, with the study of Kali (or "Silat" or "Cimande," or any other less-known art) knowing that this is how martial arts is depicted nation-wide?
Crafty_Dog:
Tiny:
Thank you for your reply which triggered some writing on my part on Wednesday. I was rather proud of it actually-- but managed to vaporize it trying to post it :x :cry: (don't ask how).
Anyway, I will try to get back to it when my juices on the subject recharge a bit.
Crafty
JDN:
Crafty, while I 100% agree that the killing of "Tiny" was profoundly sad,
I would like to dispute one comment of yours. You said, "...but if NY is anything like CA law the carrying of a knife as a weapon is illegal but it is ok to carry it as a tool.". I think we have had this discussion before, but unlike some states, CA law does not address the issue of use. For example I carry a folder (by the way, any length according to CA law is ok) in the closed position. This is perfectly legal AND I may honestly tell (politely) anyone from law enforcement who might inquire that the primary purpose of this weapon is self defense. I can honestly say, "It is not a screwdriver, can opener, or box cutter; I carry it solely for the purpose of self defense." Now, while he/she may not like that answer, but it is perfectly legal in CA.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version