Contemplating Self Defense...

[Bigshadow]

I think that the victim becomes the agressor at the point they DO MORE than is necessary to stop the attacker.

I like to say, "Doing more than is necessary is vengence/malice, do only what is necessary to survive". Notice, I didn't say WIN. When your life is on the line, it isn't a game or some school yard duel. You have a duty to yourself to protect your own life.

In addition to that, I believe as humans we should also try to save life. This means even saving the life of the attacker, if at all possible. Sometimes they don't leave anyone with a choice to save their life, and in those cases, they lose it. But to dole out death and destruction indiscriminately is ego/hatred/malice/carelessness/recklessness, etc and IMO that is just not that much different than the attacker.

Just my opinion. Oh, and we talk that "cut here, there, break this, etc" in class. But you cannot let anger and malice guide your actions. Of course I think fear of dying has a way of tempering the anger and malice and it is likely to temper the response as well.

 

[Blindside]

In my opinion the ethical issue of self defense is pretty much inline with the ideas of reasonableness of force, as defined in Australian law.
Problems arise in martial arts systems when those systems are not accommodating of this concept of reasonableness, in that they offer nothing in the way of scaled responses. If extreme violence or lethal force is the only trained response to all levels of assault, then it could be argued in many cases the idea of reasonableness will be exceeded and these techniques will qualify as excessive force.

On a side note, when extreme violence is the only response trained for all levels of assaults, then it is likely the trained fighter will offer no response or inadequate/disorganised responses to assaults that do not meet that persons own criteria to respond in the manner in which they are trained.

Hi Dale, welcome to the forums.

How dangerous do you consider a punch? What would you consider an "extreme violence" response to a punch, versus what you would consider an "acceptable" level of force? For the sake of the question, I'll grant that breaking the guys neck would be "extreme."

Can I strike the guy in the throat?
Can I knee him in the groin?
Can I possibly cripple him by folding his knee?

Give me an idea about what you view as "acceptable force" in the context of a punch.

Thanks,

Lamont

 

[Sanchin-J]

Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.

Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

Granted, any trained fighter knows the danger zones that could likely lead to the death of their attacker, palm strikes to the nose, neck breaks, certain areas of the head, blood chokes, airway chokes, there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.

When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed. Our training is diverse, we teach you many ways to avoid having to use lethal force in defending yourself as well as how to apply lethal force when you have no other choice. Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it. Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.

 

[Bigshadow]

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

Maybe, you could just subdue him, pull out your cell phone and call 911, or get a bystander to call 911, so the perp can be punished for his crimes, at the very least (or if too dangerous), disarm the perp, flee the scene, call 911 and give them a good description. Although, it isn't about making them pay, but about surviving. No matter the perp's intent, once they have been disarmed, you cannot turn around and use the weapon on them. It would be nice to be able to return the favor. But that is vengeful and is not a balanced mind.

 

[Touch Of Death]

First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.

Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.

It made me think for a long while and ask myself some questions which I have personally resolved but would make for quite a discussion on these boards. The biggest of these questions is to ask, "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?

It really made me think when we were having our discussion and while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training. I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly. Believe me, I don't see the world through rose colored glasses, there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?

Anyhow, I'd love to hear from everyone on this, its actually quite intriguing when you think about it, and although I did point a finger at Kenpo, like I said, I don't mean disrespect by it and would like to hear what those who study kenpo have to say about it as well.

Motion is motion. If you think studying the utilization of that motion is assault, I can't help you; however, you shouldn't be fighting if its not important enough to execute. What exactly do you think is over the line?
Sean

 

[Blindside]

Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.
Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.

Your situation is a fairly blatant example of use of excessive force, and I completely agree that in the situation that you have given you've gone over the line. But to expand on some of the options you have given:

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not? Why?

Is "throwing the knife away" something you would recommend? is "putting yourself on equal grounds" something you would recommend?

Lamont

 

[Sanchin-J]

If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not? Why?

At that point, I wouldn't consider it a deadly force situation for me, I have control of the weapon he tried to use against me, the largest of the threats is over. However unlikely that it is that he would actually want to continue after what just happened, should that happen I would use my training to defend myself, break contact once I was able, and get away from the situation.

Is "throwing the knife away" something you would recommend? is "putting yourself on equal grounds" something you would recommend?

I don't think I have a right or am qualified to "recommend" anything, each situation we are confronted with is different. In my situation, I would get the knife out of the picture, at least then neither of us would have to worry about being carted away on a stretcher with a steel blade plunged into one of our extremities. Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed.

 

[Blindside]

Motion is motion. If you think studying the utilization of that motion is assault, I can't help you; however, you shouldn't be fighting if its not important enough to execute. What exactly do you think is over the line?
Sean

I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife. If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.

Lamont

 

[Sanchin-J]

Maybe, you could just subdue him, pull out your cell phone and call 911, or get a bystander to call 911, so the perp can be punished for his crimes, at the very least (or if too dangerous), disarm the perp, flee the scene, call 911 and give them a good description. Although, it isn't about making them pay, but about surviving. No matter the perp's intent, once they have been disarmed, you cannot turn around and use the weapon on them. It would be nice to be able to return the favor. But that is vengeful and is not a balanced mind.

Well said Bigshadow, btw nice to see a Bujinkan member on board here, I studied at the Dexter Bujinkan Dojo here in Michigan for a long long time before being forced to switch to another art after enlisting.

What I meant by the turning the knife on the attacker was to be used as an intimidation ploy, he had a knife which was his tool to accomplish his goal, now the person he attacked has it and is threatening him with it, most attackers would back off and run at that point unless they are strung out crack addicts or are just plain crazy. There were a good many things that could have been done once gaining control of the situation, I could have choked him out and once I got him on the ground called 911, or I could have simply chucked the knife and put feet to pavement in an attempt to flee the situation. hehe.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife. If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.

Lamont

The techs are ideas of motion. Given that dance of death should be over once his head cracks the sidewalk, the "dance of death" part is for a still struggling opponent who may or may not have a knife or gun. The idea that you keep going until the bad guy is no longer a threat is just good common sense and not so much over kill. When fighting with a knife, you kill the guy plain and simple. Create bloodflow and he stops trying to kill you. The end.
sean

 

[Sanchin-J]

I can see where certain techniques as written do cross the line between assault and self-defense, Leap of Death, Dance of Death, off hand, and I've seen a knife tech extension where you basically filet the guy after taking away the knife. If the techs are interpreted as a "this is what you should do" versus a study of motion (which they are), then I understand his perception.

Lamont

That is pretty much the perception that I had regarding some of the techniques, and the problem really rests on how you tell the difference. When you are told to repetitiously practice a technique like for instance your "fillet the bad guy" knife technique, it becomes second nature to you and when a situation arises and that technique is called upon, it could be enacted and have grave consequence. Like I originally said, this post was not necessarily meant to be aimed at just Kenpo/Kempo, it was simply mentioned because that's where my original thoughts were created during a conversation with a few students of that art. Ninjutsu could also be pointed at or any number of martial arts, there are just some techniques that if used would really be crossing that line.

 

[Blindside]

At that point, I wouldn't consider it a deadly force situation for me, I have control of the weapon he tried to use against me, the largest of the threats is over. However unlikely that it is that he would actually want to continue after what just happened, should that happen I would use my training to defend myself, break contact once I was able, and get away from the situation.

I have a very different viewpoint, that guy is now trying to get his weapon back, a weapon that he has already shown intention and willingness to use, I am in a deadly force situation.

I don't think I have a right or am qualified to "recommend" anything, each situation we are confronted with is different. In my situation, I would get the knife out of the picture, at least then neither of us would have to worry about being carted away on a stretcher with a steel blade plunged into one of our extremities. Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed.

Again, I have a different viewpoint, I would never give up an advantage once achieved. If he is going to press the situation when I have the advantage it is his loss.

Lamont

 

[Sanchin-J]

I think this is really a matter of differences in the types of arts we're in and personalities of the people discussing the situation. Your thinking tactical advantage, I'm thinking get the biggest problem (the knife) out of the way and get out of dodge hehe.

Because this is a "what if" situational discussion more than anything else you could say either one of us could be right in our actions at that point. We don't know what the attacker is going to do next, is he going to attack again? Is he going to back away now that his perceived advantage of having a knife is gone? Who knows.

Your training puts you into a different mindset than my training puts me into, both styles work, they just have different mechanics in getting there.

/bows respectfully.

 

[Blindside]

That is pretty much the perception that I had regarding some of the techniques, and the problem really rests on how you tell the difference. When you are told to repetitiously practice a technique like for instance your "fillet the bad guy" knife technique, it becomes second nature to you and when a situation arises and that technique is called upon, it could be enacted and have grave consequence.

Training a tech like that doesn't make you an automoton, particularly on kenpo techs that have some ridiculous numbers of moves. They are examples of motion. In the one fight I was in as an adult it was over in seconds, I wound up hitting the guy twice, I stopped when he fell over. Why? Because the threat was over, and I recognized it just like I was trained to do. I didn't hit him a hundred times, I didn't do Dance of Death and stomp him into a bloody puddle. He fell over, I exited stage right. I'm not a killing machine despite years of training in you would call "combative systems."

good conversation,

Lamont

 

[Touch Of Death]

Training a tech like that doesn't make you an automoton, particularly on kenpo techs that have some ridiculous numbers of moves. They are examples of motion. In the one fight I was in as an adult it was over in seconds, I wound up hitting the guy twice, I stopped when he fell over. Why? Because the threat was over, and I recognized it just like I was trained to do. I didn't hit him a hundred times, I didn't do Dance of Death and stomp him into a bloody puddle. He fell over, I exited stage right. I'm not a killing machine despite years of training in you would call "combative systems."

good conversation,

Lamont

Says you... LOL

 

[thardey]

As I understand the Law in Oregon, there are two categories of "force" that you are judged by: Physical Force, and Deadly Physical Force.

If you are attacked with Physical Force, you can respond with physical force. But for me, a M.A. Trained physically fit, large man, "physical force" is a very limited scope. Pushing, trapping/locking, and grabbing are probably appropriate. Maybe open-hand "slapping." If I make a fist, though, I'm getting into a gray area. If I take a lock too far, and maim the person, I've crossed the line.

Anything that could cause "serious" bodily harm, (maiming, crippling, damage to any organ, or death) is in the "deadly physical force" category.

That includes any kind of weapon, whether a stick, or a shotgun. Once a knife is involved, or a deadly empty hand tech, that line is crossed, and a weapon, or deadly technique is required, and justified, to counter it. (In other words, you can legally bring a gun to a knife fight.)

This falls under the "Ability" category: does the attacker have the ability to cause you serious bodily injury? If yes, (Along with the other requirements: Opportunity, Imminent Jeopoardy, and Preclusion, which are material for another thread) you're in a deadly force realm, and you'd better be prepared to deal with it.

If they don't have the ability to cause you serious bodily injury (basically, you're sure you can take them), then no, you can't use most of the strikes taught in these "self defense" classes. You could basically push (not violently shove) them away and leave (since you're not really being threatened anyway) or hold them to keep them out of trouble. Basically imagine what you could legally do to a kid that you know couldn't hurt you.

At least, that's how it was explained to me.

Here's an interesting take on the "I'll hurt them enough to escape" thinking:

Part 1

(The meat of the article is in part 2)
Part 2

By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. “The law has never broken these 2 apart,” Chudwin says, which is what Paterson’s proposal tried to do. “He’s saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about ‘just a little bit.’ Any time you fire a firearm, there’s a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesn’t even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. That’s plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message.”

 

[Sanchin-J]

Well it is like I said, it is really a matter of the individual and their ability to use good judgement when it comes to what to use and when to use it. The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training."

I witnessed a fight back when I was still in High School (twitches at how long ago that actually was), involving a kid who was training in our art versus an untrained bully that just wouldn't leave him alone. The kid pulled out the entire arsenal on that bully and just destroyed him, almost killed him in fact, had that palm thrust been any harder to the nose, the bully would have died for sure. Both the combatants were reprimanded and there was a law suit and all other kinds of chaos that followed, and eventually it came down to removing the student from the art because of the lack of discipline and use of what at the time was considered deadly force.

I guess it's really about the person and how they use the tools, we can't truly say "this art is a pure gore producing slaughter system" if the techniques are being properly applied and used with discipline and self control in self defense situations.

 

[thardey]

Well it is like I said, it is really a matter of the individual and their ability to use good judgement when it comes to what to use and when to use it. The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training."

I witnessed a fight back when I was still in High School (twitches at how long ago that actually was), involving a kid who was training in our art versus an untrained bully that just wouldn't leave him alone. The kid pulled out the entire arsenal on that bully and just destroyed him, almost killed him in fact, had that palm thrust been any harder to the nose, the bully would have died for sure. Both the combatants were reprimanded and there was a law suit and all other kinds of chaos that followed, and eventually it came down to removing the student from the art because of the lack of discipline and use of what at the time was considered deadly force.

I guess it's really about the person and how they use the tools, we can't truly say "this art is a pure gore producing slaughter system" if the techniques are being properly applied and used with discipline and self control in self defense situations.

I think you really did hit it there. I would like to see a *lot* more time spent on discussing the appropriate use of force and the legal aspects especially in "self-defense" classes. If you're learning for forms, or for competition, then okay, that responsibility is shifted, but in self-defense, you gotta be able to take responsibility for what you decide to do.

 

[Dale]

Hi Dale... How dangerous do you consider a punch? What would you consider an "extreme violence" response to a punch, versus what you would consider an "acceptable" level of force? For the sake of the question, I'll grant that breaking the guys neck would be "extreme."

Can I strike the guy in the throat?
Can I knee him in the groin?
Can I possibly cripple him by folding his knee?

Give me an idea about what you view as "acceptable force" in the context of a punch.

Thanks,

Lamont

Hello Lamont,
Thank you for your welcome, I will try answer your questions starting with "How dangerous do you consider a punch?".
To me this depends entirely on the person delivering the punch and the context in which it is delivered. I have received a number of punches, some I considered credible serious threats to my safety - which could reasonably be replied to with joint breaks or any of those tactics you described ie.
"..strike the guy in the throat... knee him in the groin... possibly cripple him by folding his knee".
Those punches that I did not perceive as credible threats were often replied to using much softer responses.

So basically a punch delivered by my friends drunken grandmother or 12 year old cousin might not be that great a threat, but a punch delivered by a 115kg steroid raging member of a 4 man group intent on doing me serious harm would be taken as a more serious attack.

This is what I was referring to as "reasonableness" and demonstrates the importance of being able to scale our responses.



Respectfully,
Dale

 

[exile]

Hello Lamont,
Thank you for your welcome, I will try answer your questions starting with "How dangerous do you consider a punch?".
To me this depends entirely on the person delivering the punch and the context in which it is delivered. I have received a number of punches, some I considered credible serious threats to my safety - which could reasonably be replied to with joint breaks or any of those tactics you described ie.
"..strike the guy in the throat... knee him in the groin... possibly cripple him by folding his knee".
Those punches that I did not perceive as credible threats were often replied to using much softer responses.

So basically a punch delivered by my friends drunken grandmother or 12 year old cousin might not be that great a threat, but a punch delivered by a 115kg steroid raging member of a 4 man group intent on doing me serious harm would be taken as a more serious attack.

This is what I was referring to as "reasonableness" and demonstrates the importance of being able to scale our responses.



Respectfully,
Dale

Well, then, in a sense you've answered your own implicit question, Dale. You are not going to get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.

I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsely if someone tries to do open-ended damage to me—and why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron, and given that they are attacking you, while you had no intent to do them any harm, I believe you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat.

Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice. Would anyone really expect me, or anyone else, to peruse the ethical nicities of force modulation, in real time, under those circumstances? I want, and believe I deserve, to live; I have a wife, a child and other relatives who depend on me. The attacker who tries to harm me is attacking them as well. If my response results in severe damage to my attacker—and I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happen—can anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?