Dog Brothers Public Forum

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?

If you search google news, you'll notice that the many of the headlines read "Martial Arts Expert Found Guilty..." or some variation thereof.

If you read previous articles, it seems that this defendant went from being a person who took a few martial arts classes, to being labeled a "martial arts expert."  Makes him sound slightly more lethal, and makes for better copy.  I still say it's worrisome.

At any rate, thanks for the update, Argyll.

Couldn't find a thread that nicely contained all such references, so I thought I'd start one -- hope it's no bother.

Here:

Discovering the Origin of Martial Arts:  the Dunhuang Caves

According to Shanghai Evening Post, since the 19th century, scholars have paid great attention to, and conducted research on the historical data of the martial arts paintings in China?s famous Dunhuang cave, discovered in 1900, which holds over ten thousand Buddhist scriptures and works of art.

Wang Degong, formerly the vice-president of the Gansu Province Chinese Martial Arts Association, and several other famous martial arts experts in Gansu province believe that the Dunhuang cave paintings give clues to the evolvement of Chinese martial arts.

<snip>

During the long course of history, people in the city Dunhuang, which sits near the famous cave, have passed on from generation to generation all kinds of martial arts movements. Wang Degong said, "While we were "copying" the martial arts movements, we delightedly discovered that many of the martial arts movements on the Dunhuang cave paintings resemble the martial arts styles in the local Lanzhou area." People can find traces of it in the images of martial arts from the Han and Tang dynasty up to current versions.

I dig martial arts evolution and history, I thought others might as well...

SB Mig, and all,

I hear you're still waiting for an answer...

I don't know that there is one, especially since such prose is mandated by the media, and a form of job preservation (the flashier and more dramatic the story, the more likely you won't be fired, or dissolve into the crowd of freelancers).

I suppose that one way to stem the tide of negativity would be to become active in the community (both in the martial arts community, and the general public), giving the martial arts positive publicity...of course, this will work directly against you if media hype prevails, so its double-edged-sword potential is high.

By becoming active I mean such things as:  youth, senior, and women's self-defense seminars, neighborhood watches (do they still exist?), guest speaking about self-protection at local events, working with newspapers and local news crews for stories on classes, seminars and the importance of community vigilance to reinforce the notion that martial arts are born out of a desire to safeguard.  Do most of us have time for these sorts of things?  Not many of us, I'd imagine...but I think if your goals are as stated, that's along the lines of what it would take.

Well, I always do like to get my Nickelback.

"Most people who are into the martial arts to 'kick a$$ and take names' will show themselves as that from the get go and are easily weeded out. "

Right.  But does it happen, and if not, shouldn't it?  I've certainly seen that attitude considered acceptable by some instructors.  I'm not placing the burden of the impossible on the instructor for every character flaw -- Ted Bundy was considered an all-around charmer.  I'm talking (well, typing) about this "kick a$$ and take names" individual who isn't checked.  If a martial arts instructor isn't at least, on some vague level, evaluating the constitution of his student(s), isn't that, well, not good?  And doesn't the "check out this sweet, killer technique" mentality point to a basic misunderstanding of cause and effect when it comes to force?  And, at the very least, shouldn't proper use of force be revisited?  I've only ever had one instructor who mentioned the topic.

I'm not necessarily saying that the situation in the article above is one such case, but it certainly begs the question(s).

Here's the link:

http://tinyurl.com/4vu54

Isaias Umali, 32, of Jamaica, is charged with murder in the death of Dana Blake, who was stabbed in the upper thigh with a six-inch knife.

Blake's femoral artery was severed in the April 13, 2003, attack at the trendy club, Guernica. The incident allegedly began after an argument over smoking just two weeks after the city ban went into affect.

Umali is trained in kali, a Filipino martial art that includes knife-fighting techniques -- "including specific areas of the body where you can stab someone in order to cause his death," Assistant Manhattan District Attorney David Lauscher said in his opening statement in State Supreme Court yesterday. The prosecutor said Umali even demonstrated to his friends the move he used to kill Blake.

It seems to me the overriding question is:  should one eschew affiliation to a specific martial art for legal protection?  It seems that "the martial arts" still invoke a great deal of mystery in the courtroom and in the media -- especially if the art is not readily identifiable (such as karate, tae kwon do, etc.), like "kali" or "silat."

The other question is:  If your friend is being choked out, do you really knife the guy with a six-inch blade?  I suppose this would be a good time to remember the proportion of reaction?