Eye Square Martial Arts

Cultural Preservation… with Bruises.

Category: Martial Arts Education

  • The Sword in the Soul of the Islands: Why Filipino Martial History Matters

    The Sword in the Soul of the Islands: Why Filipino Martial History Matters

    When people think about martial arts, they usually imagine kung fu masters leaping off rooftops or UFC fighters trading elbows in a cage. But tucked away in the tropical mess of jungles, islands, and traffic jams we call the Philippines is something just as badass—if not more: Arnis, Eskrima, and Kali.

    These aren’t just some old-school ways to swing a stick around. They’re survival systems. They’re family legacies. They’re the “hold my bolo and watch this” moments passed down from generation to generation. More than that, they’re cultural time capsules—full of grit, improvisation, and a deep refusal to stay conquered.

    See, looking at Philippine history through the lens of its martial arts isn’t just about techniques or training drills. It’s about how people adapted to hundreds of years of colonizers trying to kill their culture—and still found a way to hit back. Sometimes literally.

    When the Spanish said “No weapons allowed,” Filipinos said, “Cool, we’ll just dance with them instead.” When the Americans brought boxing and baseball, the old arts went underground but never disappeared. These arts lived in fiestas, in rituals, in little moments where someone would casually flip a stick around and say, “Yeah, I used to train a bit.”

    This series is going to walk through Philippine history with an eye for the fighters—tribal warriors, resistance leaders, backyard masters, and everyone in between. We’ll talk about why people fought, how they fought, and what they passed down. This isn’t just for the historians. This is for anyone who’s ever taken a shot to the knuckles during a sinawali drill and smiled through the pain.

    So if you train in Filipino martial arts—or you’re just curious where this whole stick-twirling madness came from—strap in. This is the story of the Philippines, told through its fighters. It’s a little bit blood, a little bit blade, and a whole lot of spirit.

    Let’s get started.

  • Self-Defense: What’s the Prosecution’s Objective?

    Self-Defense: What’s the Prosecution’s Objective?

    Self-Defense: What’s the Prosecution’s Objective?

    Not legal advice. I’m not a lawyer or legal expert. Please consult a qualified attorney in your area for actual legal guidance. And if you haven’t yet, read Andrew Branca’s Law of Self Defense—you can even get a free copy.

    In the previous post, we covered the Five Elements of a Self-Defense Claim and how doctrines like Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground don’t give you a blank check (in spite of what news anchors will tell you)—they simply remove the duty to retreat, under specific conditions.

    To review, the Five Elements are:

    • Innocence
    • Imminence
    • Avoidance
    • Proportionality
    • Reasonableness

    To successfully claim self-defense, you must show—at a minimum—that each of these five elements was present during the use-of-force event. The standard isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt—it’s preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Fail to meet that threshold and the judge may not even allow a self-defense argument to be presented at trial.

    Once the defense is allowed to proceed, the prosecution’s job is simple:

    Disprove just one of the five elements.

    That’s it. And they’ll use every tool available to do so.

    INNOCENCE

    The prosecution may argue that you were not the innocent party—perhaps because:

    • You were armed and trained, and that “means you were looking for trouble”
    • You acted with preparation or intent, rather than in response to a real threat

    Example:
    In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the prosecution tried to claim that merely carrying an AR-15 was provocative—essentially blaming him for making rioters feel unsafe. Fortunately, the jury didn’t buy it.

    IMMINENCE

    Prosecutors may question whether the threat was truly immediate:

    • “How did you know he was going to attack right then?”
    • “Why didn’t you wait to see if he’d actually act on his words?”

    They’ll argue that you jumped the gun. Whether someone was squared up, blocking your exit, or verbalizing threats, you’ll need to articulate those facts clearly and credibly.

    AVOIDANCE

    Avoidance is one of the most misunderstood elements.

    If you’re in a duty-to-retreat jurisdiction, the law expects you to take any available, safe way out—but only if doing so won’t expose you to grave harm.

    Examples:

    • The prosecution may claim you chose to be in a bad place—e.g., Kyle Rittenhouse “wasn’t from Kenosha.”
    • In a recent NY subway case, a homeless man defended himself against multiple attackers. Prosecutors argued he should’ve simply let himself be robbed.

    This kind of reasoning punishes people for not being victims.

    PROPORTIONALITY

    This is where prosecutors will twist the facts.

    • “He just tried to punch you.” (But he’s twice your size.)
    • “He only had a knife.” (As if a knife isn’t extremely deadly.)
    • “You used pepper spray on a guy yelling at you.” (But he was clearly escalating.)

    They’ll ignore things like:

    • Age or health disparities
    • Multiple attackers
    • Your medical vulnerabilities (e.g., on blood thinners)

    Example:
    In the Rittenhouse case, one attacker had “only a skateboard.” Yeah—reinforced hardwood with metal trucks, being swung at his head. That’s a deadly weapon.

    REASONABLENESS

    This element blends objective standards (what the average person would do) with subjective context (what you knew).

    Defense attorneys may present:

    • Your attacker’s reputation for violence
    • Your physical limitations or health status
    • Your training and experience

    Prosecutors will try to keep this evidence out. That’s why it’s important to document your training:

    • Certificates
    • Class notes
    • Dated materials you’ve sent to yourself

    All of it helps prove what you knew at the time.

    Wrapping Up

    Yeah, I’ve been a little hard on prosecutors here. That’s not accidental.

    Many prosecutors—especially those in high-profile or politically sensitive cases—will do whatever they can to score a win, regardless of the truth. And the system is structured in a way that can feel stacked against someone who acted in good faith.

    You need to understand:
    Police and prosecutors are not your friends.
    That’s where we’re headed next.

  • “Self-Defense” What’s Needed for a Proper Claim?

    “Self-Defense” What’s Needed for a Proper Claim?

    I’m not a lawyer—but I have read Andrew Branca’s book (you can get a free copy by following the link) and several others. I’m not an expert either, but this series is meant to help you start understanding legal concepts and realities so you can seek out deeper knowledge for yourself.

    Ultimately this is not legal advice, you should seek out a qualified attorney in your area and see guidance from them!

    Despite what you might see online, claiming “self-defense” isn’t as simple as saying “I feared for my life!” on the stand. In reality, it’s a minefield of legal nuance—and one misstep can change everything.

    Misconceptions and My Early Mistake

    When I first started looking into self-defense law, I ran into acronyms like IMOP:

    • Intent
    • Means
    • Opportunity
    • Preclusion

    I assumed that if I could check those boxes, I was covered. But that turned out to be an oversimplification. A kind comment (I think from Andrew Branca himself) on an old blog post of mine pointed out how tricky a self-defense claim can be in real life. That moment pushed me to dive deeper.

    The truth is, the legal system doesn’t start from a place of perfect knowledge. The responding officer almost always misunderstands what actually happened. Screaming “It was self-defense!” doesn’t help—especially when what really happened was someone’s ego (their “Monkey”) escalating things into a preventable fight.

    And let’s be honest: a career criminal might be better at looking innocent than you are at being innocent.

    Branca’s Five Elements of Self-Defense

    To navigate this legal minefield, Andrew Branca presents Five Elements of Self-Defense. These are legal standards—not gut feelings—and learning them helps you understand when and how self-defense can be properly claimed:

    1. Innocence
    2. Imminence
    3. Avoidance
    4. Proportionality
    5. Reasonableness

    Each of these words has a specific legal definition that doesn’t always match the casual way we use them in conversation. Let’s walk through each one.

    1. Innocence

    Were you the one who started the fight? Were you where you had a legal right to be?

    If you’re engaging in threatening behavior—like squaring up aggressively, posturing, or hurling insults—you may lose your claim to innocence. There’s a legal concept called “Fighting Words”: if you provoke someone and they respond violently, the law may say you’re the aggressor.

    2. Imminence

    Imminence is about timing.

    Was the threat right there, right then? Did they have the means and opportunity to carry out the threat immediately? Or was it more like “I’ll come back later!”

    Example:
    At a lacrosse game, an opposing player slashed a teammate of my brother. The player’s mom got angry and yelled at the coach, eventually threatening:
    “Do you want me to get a baseball bat and beat the crap out of you?!”

    Police were called. The officer asked if she had a bat. She didn’t. She’d have to go get one, come back, and then follow through. Since there was no imminent threat, no charges were filed.

    3. Avoidance

    Did you have a safe way to leave?

    In many places, there’s a duty to retreat before using force, especially deadly force. The exceptions to this rule are legal doctrines like:

    • Castle Doctrine (no duty to retreat in your own home)
    • Stand Your Ground (no duty to retreat in public, under specific conditions)

    Important note: these doctrines only relieve you of the duty to retreat—they don’t override the other four elements.

    In some states, you may even have access to a Stand Your Ground hearing—a pre-trial hearing where a judge decides if the evidence supports your self-defense claim enough to block criminal charges or civil lawsuits.

    4. Proportionality

    Your response must match the level of threat.

    If someone shoves you, that doesn’t give you the right to shoot them. But if someone comes at you with a knife, deadly force may be justified.

    Context matters:

    • A 5’3”, 105 lb woman being attacked by a 6’5”, 300 lb man may reasonably fear for her life even without a weapon being involved.
    • The same goes for multiple attackers—even if none of them are armed.

    This is called disparity of force, and it’s a key part of understanding proportionality.

    5. Reasonableness

    Would a “reasonable person” act the same way in your shoes?

    That’s the million-dollar question, and it’s what jurors are asked to consider. Of course, jurors don’t know everything you did at the time. That’s why the defense must present:

    • Prior history with the attacker
    • Their reputation
    • Any weapons present
    • Training, physical limitations, or awareness on your part
    • Distance and threat potential (e.g., knife at 10 feet)

    The court weighs both subjective knowledge (what you knew) and objective standards (how a reasonable person would respond). Just saying “I was afraid” doesn’t cut it. You need to be able to explain why your fear was reasonable.

    Wrapping Up

    This was a denser post than usual—and with good reason. Self-defense law is full of complexity and myth. What we’ve covered here is from the defense’s perspective—what you need to justify your actions.

    But self-defense claims don’t exist in a vacuum.

    In the next post, we’ll talk about the prosecution—how they think, what they look for, and how they’ll try to dismantle your self-defense claim.