C&S Online
An Online Newsletter For The
C&S Self Defense Association
Spring 2004

Confidence. Fitness. Success.

Views From Around the Association...

If you have seen the movie "The Passion of Christ", or listened to "Jesus Christ Superstar", you may remember the scene where Jesus is being questioned by Pilate. Pilate is asking Jesus if it is true that Jesus is a King of the Jews. Pilate gets frustrated by Jesus' short, vague answers and finally asks Jesus:

"What is truth? Is truth unchanging law?"
"We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?"

Fast forward to today. I'm sure you have seen many articles in the paper and heard many stories on television about court trials where the person on trial appears to get away with a crime or gets a huge cash settlement even though it seemed apparent the person did something stupid to get hurt in the first place. Most people will complain about the lawyers and the justice system and how it just seems that common sense doesn't matter anymore. Most people in the legal system will argue back that the newspapers and television reports either did not, or could not, report all of the facts in the case and that this is why you (the outside observer) can not make an informed decision on the outcome of the case. I recently had the opportunity to be a juror in a criminal felony case and in this case, I would have to agree with the lawyers. My experience made me realize that you do NOT get all the facts from the reports you read and hear; and, like Pilate, when you hear conflicting stories and opinions, you have to ask yourself - what is THE truth. Lawyers and reporters play a tricky game of presenting enough of a story to get you on their side and using facts and professional opinions to contradict the truths being presented by their opposition. As a martial artist, I was fascinated by the verbal sparring and positioning that was going on in the courtroom - a gentleman's no-contact sparring match, if you will. It soon became apparent that this was not a cut and dry case and that each side had their own truths to tell.

The role of a jury is to decide what is THE truth in a case. You are bound by certain obligations: you must believe that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and that the person must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You can not make guesses nor assumptions, and you must make your decision based only on the facts presented during the trial. If there is any reasonable doubt that the person is not guilty, then the verdict that the jury returns must be not guilty. With those simple rules in mind, the trial began.

Our case was about a young man who was on trial for aggravated DWI and a second charge of negligent homicide. In a nutshell, it was a Friday before the Christmas holiday in 2002 and the defendant had stopped into a bar for a few drinks before going home for the weekend. On his way home from the bar, the truck he was driving crossed over the center line into the oncoming traffic and hit another car. There were two people in the car - the driver, a woman, and a male passenger. The smaller car received significant damage and both people had some serious injuries. The defendant had a small bruise on the forehead but was otherwise in good condition and could move about freely. Nobody in either vehicle was wearing safety belts. The male passenger from the small car had a severe hip fracture and had to be put in traction at the hospital. Although he came out of the procedure to repair his hip with no apparent problems, he later developed breathing problems and within two weeks suffered from multi-organ failure and died. Thus, the original charge of aggravated DWI was upgraded to include negligent homicide. The prosecution centered his case on the fact that the defendant admitted drinking prior to the accident and that the victim died as a result of his injuries in the crash. The defense centered his case on the fact that the police investigation was faulty. Field sobriety tests, conducted by the police at the accident scene, could not be trusted because the defendant was also injured and might have been confused after the crash. Blood alcohol tests done three hours later were inconclusive because there was only one sample taken - when there should have been two. The defense tried to prove that the victim, who was in the end stages of liver disease, died due to an infection picked up at the hospital and not as a direct result of the crash injuries. It was also brought up that the female driver of the small car was also drunk at the time and had powerful prescription pain killers in her bloodstream as well as traces of THC (marijuana).

Needless to say, our deliberations were interesting. We spent about 5 hours trying to agree on the first charge of aggravated DWI. Because of the conflicting truths and facts presented during the trial, it took a long time for us to all agree that he was indeed guilty of this charge. We all agreed that it was likely he was guilty, but we all had to agree - based on the facts - that he was guilty. It all came down to the legal wording of the charges - was the driver impaired to ANY degree by alcohol - that won over the dissenting members of our jury. After we finally decided on the first charge, we had to discuss the negligent homicide charge. Believe it or not, this was actually easier for us to agree on. We found him not guilty. Although the simple truth is that the victim would not have been in the hospital if it had not been for the accident, we also found the wording of the law in this case allowed us to shift some of the responsibility for this incident back to the victim. The law stated that we had to find the defendant guilty if his actions played a significant cause in the death. We all felt that the victim played a significant role in his own death by allowing himself to be a passenger in a car driven by a person who was drunk at the time and that he also failed to wear safety belts in a car equipped with air bags. The combination of seat belts and air bags that were in the small car may have reduced the extent of his injuries if he had used them and may have saved his life. So what really happened? Only God knows - but from what we could tell - one drunk driver hit another drunk driver and the passenger, a recovering alcoholic, who would not have survived another few months without a liver transplant, slammed into the dashboard, broke his hip and later died. I can only say that it sucks to be them. It was a very sad case.

What became apparent during our deliberations as a jury was that some people became focused on specific facts to reach their conclusions. They latched onto a specific fact, ignoring others, to come up with reasonable doubt. ("We both have truths, are mine the same as yours?") What finally brought us into agreement with each other was the ability to take a wider perspective - a broader view - of the information. With this approach, a much clearer picture came into view and all twelve of us went home feeling we had made the right decision. Two days later, I became very angry after reading a report in the local paper that described the outcome of the trial. The reporter quoted the prosecutor as saying he was pleased with the guilty verdict on the aggravated DWI charge but felt we decided on a not guilty verdict on the negligent homicide charge because the victim was going to die soon anyway without a liver transplant. There were no comments from the defense attorney because he "could not be reached". I was horrified because the prosecutor did not hear our discussions, he had no idea on our reasoning and now there was a statement in the paper that made our jury look like a bunch of cold hearted idiots! What truth about the case do you think the average person will be left with?

In our everyday lives we will not always have all of the information we need for our decision making process. Sometimes we put off what we need to do because we want more information and facts. Well, the real truth is that you won't ever have all the facts. The real truth is that you can only do the best you can do with what you have at the time. In your own life, use your tools of BST and meditation to gain more information about yourself, but don't wait until you feel you have all the answers before you start to make changes in your life. Remember to take a step back once in a while and see how the pieces fit together instead of always focusing on details. If something is bothering you, take a look at the problem from a different perspective. Reach inward and extract the facts and truths about yourself so that you can make informed decisions on leading a happier, calmer life. Every artist must step away from the canvas every so often to see if what he is creating remains truthful to the thing he (or she) is trying to represent. It's not an easy task - but it is very rewarding.

Readers Challenge: From the limited amount of facts I presented about the court case presented above - do you agree with the findings of the jury? Do you think the outcome of the case was fairly represented in the paper? How might this impact the way you view "the truth"? I would be interested to read any comments you have. Drop me an e-mail at larry.holman@comast.net.

---

2nd Degree Black Belt Nidan Larry Holman is the Sempai of the Somersworth School Of Self Defense in Somersworth, NH. He lives in Dover, NH, with his wife Sue and their three children.

The Asian view of life, nature and the body revolves around the concept of a life force or energy.I alluded to this force in the C&S Fall newsletter article I wrote about the concept of yin and yang. In that article I indicated that Qi results from the inter-mingling of yin and yang. A human being results from the Qi of heaven and earth.(1) The Chinese characters representing Qi literally translate into rice steam.(2) So Qi may be considered matter on the verge of becoming energy or energy at the point of materializing.(3) Just as the process of cooking rice produces steam.

There are three main sources of Qi in the human body. Original or prenatal qi (yuan qi) is hereditary. It is transmitted by parents to children at birth. Yuan qi is stored in the kidneys and is partially responsible for our inherited constitution.(4).The second source of Qi is from food digestion (Gu Qi). And the third source of Qi is from is natural air Qi (Kong Qi) which is extracted from the air we breath. These three forms of Qi combine to create all bodily Qi. There is no place in the body that does not have Qi and no place Qi does not penetrate.(5)

The functions of Qi include: transformation; transportation; holding; raising; protecting and warming. Qi transforms substances into Qi and transports Qi and fluids throughout the body. Qi holds fluids in the vessels and organs and keeps our organs (holds) from prolapsing. Finally, Qi protects our body from external pathogens and generates internal bodily heat.(6)

Qi theory is important, however it is my experience that if you cannot feel things in martial arts, they become less relevant. So here is a simple, easy method to actually generate and feel Qi. Execute dynamic tension breathing (at least 10 repetitions) or San Chin if you know it, with your hands open. Keep the fingers gently rounded and spread apart. When you are finished position the palms of your hands 4-5 inches apart. You will feel a warm, energetic tingling between your palms. This is the Qi you generated and moved down your hands emanating out your palms.

Good luck and strong Qi.
Sandan

1. The Yellow Emporer's Classic Of Internal Medicine, 1979, pg. 158-159.
2. Maciocia, Giovanni, 1989, The Foundations Of Chinese Medicine, pg. 35.
3. Kaptchuk, Ted, 1983, The Web That Has No Weaver, pg. 35.
4. The Web That Has No Weaver, pg. 36.
5. The Web That Has No Weaver, pg. 36.
6. Maciocia, Giovanni, 1989, The Foundations Of Chinese Medicine, pg. 46-47.

---

3rd Degree Black Belt Sandan Russ Jones lives in the Lakes Region of New Hampshire where he founded the Sachem Self Defense School. He began studying martial arts under Grandmaster Rose in September, 1985 and became a Disciple in 1997. His martial arts career has been one of independent research. During the 1980's Sandan Jones researched Modern Arnnis with Master Remy Presas and Small Circle Jujisu with Master Wally Jay. In the 1990's Sandan Jones studied Dim Mak with Master Evan Pantazzi, Ling Kong Jing (Standing Meditation) with Sifu Richard Mooney and Qi Gong with Master Pham Huy Khue. In September of 2002, Sandan Jones began studying Zen Shiatsu with Patricia Carusone and Tai Ji with Master Henry Oliveras. He is a student of Chinese Medicine at the Charles River School Of Shiatsu in Arlington, MA. Sandan Jones shares his unique combination of martial, meditative and healing arts at the Sachem Self Defense School in Laconia, N.H. In his spare time, he can be found snowboarding, hiking, playing bottleneck slide guitar or doing kata in the park next to his house. Sandan Jones can be reached through his web site, www.sachemselfdefense.com.