If it's not close quarters it's not self defense?

[Joab]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

 

[MJS]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

IMO, I think that attempting to flee, attempting being the key word here, is something that should always be done. However, people tend to use that as a crutch, thinking that fleeing has some magical powers, that its the end all, be all solution, that thats all you need to do. To that, I strongly disagree. Again, it will depend on the situation. Someone follows me into a parking lot, jumps out of their car, yelling and walking quickly towards me, saying I cut them off, well, IMO, theres not much time to talk. I'm not going to play games and start running around my car. Even if I thought I could run away, I'm no track star, so this guy could easily chase after me. I am not leaving my wife behind, so what am I supposed to do, run and leave her? This is why I say that its an option, not a solution.

Now, it is possible, for me to move back, and while doing so, say something along the lines of, "Get away from me. I dont want any trouble." Now, should he continue, I'm well within my right to defend myself. I gave him a choice, he didn't take it, so now I'm escalating.

However, I think that SD extends even further from actual combat. SD is being aware. If you see something that doesnt look right, get an uneasy feeling, and take an alternate route to your destination, ie: you're walking to the entrance of the mall, see a group of questionable people, perhaps enter via another entrance. You see someone hanging around near your car. How about going back to the mall and getting security.

Back to verbally talking your way out. Make no mistake about it, I'll always attempt that, and there've been many times when thats just what I did....I was firm, confident, made it known that I wasn't backing down, and sure enough, it worked.

So, the moral of the story....you dont have to be in a physical confrontation to defend yourself.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think that's an incredibly limited view of self defence, honestly (er, MJS got in ahead of me, this in entirely to do with the OP).

As has been said many (many, many, many...) times over now, self defence is far less to do with the physical skills, and more about being aware enough to avoid such things in the first place. The physical is really best thought of as a fall-back skill set. For example, a large section of our self defence curriculum, so to speak, is focused on getting distance so you can escape safely, and includes distancing, verbal de-escalation, understanding of body language and pre-fight indicators, understanding the psychology of fight-flight-freeze, and more before we even get to pre-emptive striking, group situations, close quarter brawling, street throws, street kicks, weapon defence and more. Hmm, you know what, only two of those count as close quarters to me, and it all counts as self defence.

As to if someone attacks you, then moves back (out of close quarters range), you should be able to flee, well, not necessarily. Why have they moved back? Is it because they think they've done enough damage, or because they're waiting to see what you do, then attack again (and what they may be waiting for is for you to try to leave). People can cover a distance much quicker than most think, so that would rule out their basic premise for me.

Does it become a fight? Do you mean a match fight? Maybe. But then again, it can be a match fight in close quarters as well, if both are refusing to try to get out when the opportunity presents itself. Then again, at a distance, if they're still sizing you up, and obviously ready to continue, how are you not still defending yourself by keeping them in your attention (and not retreating if it doesn't feel safe to do so)?

Frankly, once again this is so open that it's impossible to make these clean-cut statements, and anyone making them are trying to prey on fear by appearing to have answers that "no one else has!", and that doesn't seem like someone I'd personally listen to much. There's just not enough understanding for me to think they know much about what they're talking about. Martial arts are not designed for self defence, I personally think they should stop being marketed as such (my current kick). This is just another example.

 

[Balrog]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

I'm assuming that firearms do not enter into the picture here, because they change the definition of "range".

Having said that, assuming that the situation has degenerated to actual violence, the first and best self-defense is to run like hell. The second best self-defense is to disable your attacker enough to allow you to run like hell.

The sad reality is that once blows are struck, we martial artists are going to be hung out to dry. The bad guy will probably sue us and we'll wind up in front of a jury of people who think they are martial experts because they watched "Kung Fu Panda" or something, and who think that you should have been able to jump over the roof of the building to escape. If you can demonstrate that every one of your actions was oriented towards allowing you to escape the situation, you'll be much better off.

 

[Haakon]

As to if someone attacks you, then moves back (out of close quarters range), you should be able to flee, well, not necessarily. Why have they moved back? Is it because they think they've done enough damage, or because they're waiting to see what you do, then attack again (and what they may be waiting for is for you to try to leave). People can cover a distance much quicker than most think, so that would rule out their basic premise for me.

I agree, most people don't realize how little time it takes an attacker to cover a pretty large distance. The danger zone, especially if the opponent has a weapon, is quite large. 1.5 seconds for an attacker to cover 21 feet. I wonder how many people have heard of the Tueller Drill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

1.5 seconds is not much time for most people to react to an attack and defend themselves. For many people that entire time could be consumed by surprise and "is that guy really doing what I think he's doing" thoughts before defense is even initiated.

I really hate the idea of fleeing for 3 main reasons:
1) If I'm not alone I am NOT leaving family or friends behind
2) I'm big and slow and couldn't run far, just about anyone could catch me. I don't know if I could cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, so your typical attacker could probably catch me as soon as I turned around to flee.
3) Turning my back on a threat seems like a really, really, bad idea.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Haakon beat me to the Tueller Drill. But I will expound upon the AOJ Triad:


This is common training standard throughout the US at least, and I like to call it "The triangle that makes things square".

It is comprised of three things:

ABILITY (Is this person/this group physically capable of carying out the threat?) : Does this person possess an advantage in size/strength, weapon or dangerous instrument, known fighting skill( known by you before or during the incident; finding out after the fact is inadmissible), Able bodied v. disabled ( Disability does NOT have to be visible or obvious), male v. female, force of numbers, young v. elderly and so on.


OPPORTUNITY ( is this person/this group physically close enough to carry out the threat without any obstacle or impediment stopping them?) : For example, as exemplified in the Tueller Drill, a person with a knife is a deadly force threat at 21 feet, but not at 200, across four lanes of traffic. Ability exists but there is no Opportunity, and therefore no Jeopardy.

Swap out the knife with a rifle, and Opportunity is REintroduced.


JEOPARDY (Is this person/this group in the process of carrying out the threat, or otherwise behaving in such a way that a reasonable person in your place would conclude that they were in IMMINENT DANGER ( I.E. "If I wait any longer to do something it will be too late to do ANYTHING") of death or grave bodily harm( Protracted injury/loss of use of limb, organ or sense, rape, and in many jurisdictions, arson or kidnap) : You see a guy with rifle at 200 feet away. he is slinging it over his shoulder and is dressed in hunting gear. Ability and Opportunity are both present but no Jeopardy exists.

Swap the scenario around and have the guy unsling his rifle, work the bolt and level the muzzle at YOU, and all three elements are present and you are in the clear to respond with deadly force should you have the means.

All three elements must be present at the same time for you to be in the clear as far as deadly force, but they're a good idea to keep in mind even in cases of nondeadly force( after all if there's any group that understands that even hands can kill, it's us).

Some jurisdictions add a fourth criteria: PRECLUSION. It can basically be boiled down to say that if you are not precluded from escaping in complete safety( I.e. you are not required to turn and walk away right as a punch/stick/stab is inbound or close enough to be) that you must do so or attempt to do so before your use of force can be justified.

I do not use this fourth category except for informational purposes since I reason that, if I can escape in complete safety, "Imminent danger" has not manifested.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

It's all situational.

Do bear in mind that running can instill an overly defensive mindset or worse can lead to a panicky mindset, these can lead to death.

In nature and in war before rapid fire firearms, most death happens when the victum breaks and runs. They tend to be run down and killed.

If I see the situation before I (and someone with me) are in it, then retrat is a great idea, but when threatend I'll chose a counter assult over running most of the time.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

Well that's the very problem--the predominant number of people who teach martial arts might be great at knowing about *martial arts* but don't know **** about *self defense*.

 

[jks9199]

The goal of self defense is to deal with an attacker/assailant in order to escape from danger, not subdue them or fight them to a draw or win in the eyes of some judge. That doesn't automatically mean you run as soon as the assailant backs up; deterring further attack to enable a safe escape is a part of self defense. However, if you've achieved some variably defined point of safety, and you choose to re-engage the assailant without justification, you've moved out of self defense. Whether for police or civilians, the courts have been reluctant to draw a bright line to identify that point, because it is a very situational decision.

 

[Joab]

I think that's an incredibly limited view of self defence, honestly (er, MJS got in ahead of me, this in entirely to do with the OP).

As has been said many (many, many, many...) times over now, self defence is far less to do with the physical skills, and more about being aware enough to avoid such things in the first place. The physical is really best thought of as a fall-back skill set. For example, a large section of our self defence curriculum, so to speak, is focused on getting distance so you can escape safely, and includes distancing, verbal de-escalation, understanding of body language and pre-fight indicators, understanding the psychology of fight-flight-freeze, and more before we even get to pre-emptive striking, group situations, close quarter brawling, street throws, street kicks, weapon defence and more. Hmm, you know what, only two of those count as close quarters to me, and it all counts as self defence.

As to if someone attacks you, then moves back (out of close quarters range), you should be able to flee, well, not necessarily. Why have they moved back? Is it because they think they've done enough damage, or because they're waiting to see what you do, then attack again (and what they may be waiting for is for you to try to leave). People can cover a distance much quicker than most think, so that would rule out their basic premise for me.

Does it become a fight? Do you mean a match fight? Maybe. But then again, it can be a match fight in close quarters as well, if both are refusing to try to get out when the opportunity presents itself. Then again, at a distance, if they're still sizing you up, and obviously ready to continue, how are you not still defending yourself by keeping them in your attention (and not retreating if it doesn't feel safe to do so)?

Frankly, once again this is so open that it's impossible to make these clean-cut statements, and anyone making them are trying to prey on fear by appearing to have answers that "no one else has!", and that doesn't seem like someone I'd personally listen to much. There's just not enough understanding for me to think they know much about what they're talking about. Martial arts are not designed for self defence, I personally think they should stop being marketed as such (my current kick). This is just another example.

To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact
at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar
you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close
combat

This is a very brief quote, if you would like to explore the system more thoroughly please go to www.attackproof.com

 

[girlbug2]

I am not now a good runner, nor have I ever been. That was a major motivation in my learning self defense to begin with. If my attacker is young and fit, that is all the more reason to make sure they're not getting up before I break away and run.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay.... not really sure what the quote was supposed to tell me, to be honest. "To be completely passive you must remain in contact at all times (?)" What? I can't be passive on the other side of the bar from a potential attacker when I'm hanging with my friends? I have to go and remain in contact? And if an altercation does take place, if I shove him away and trigger his flight responce, I can't be passive, but if he grabs me and drags me down on the stcky, smelly bar floor, then I can? Really, steer clear of anything that gives finite examples like "only" and "always" as a general rule, they're preying on emotional weaknesses (in this case, fear).

I went to the site you linked, and frankly, it's just a huge marketing ad for scared people. Phrases like "... the only system teaching true, FREE FORM, adaptive self defence" and "REAL VIOLENCE IS CHAOS; ADAPT OR DIE" have me laughing at the insecurity of those that put this out there, and those that believe it just because it's on a website.

The message behind the entire site is "Be scared! Listen to what I tell you because I'm telling you to be scared! You're gonna be attacked! And I'm the only one telling you the truth, no-one has told you this before! Listen to how good I am! I'm saving you from something that you didn't even know you needed saving from! Are you scared yet?" In other terms, it's the same as a little kid, the more noise they make, the more attention they get, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention. In fact, the bad attention is easier to get....

This is shown in things like "More endorsements!" (look at how good I am!), and "Guided Chaos copycats" (look how good I am, others want to be me!). Nothing truly worth it needs to shout it this loudly. You also have the typical scare-mongering aspects, here shown in two lists of 10 "facts". The first is 10 advantages, in which a big deal is made of belittling martial art systems and BJJ/MMA approaches by stating that you "don't waste valuable time memorizing a million moves" (showing no understanding of how a martial art is actually trained... although I feel that is a deliberate misrepresentation) and "fight from the ground without having to wrestle someone bigger and stronger". There is also the typical promises beyond belief ("develop a liquid body that can't be broken, locked or grappled", "develop hyper-balance..." I mean really, what on earth can they be talking about? Hyper-balance? An unbreakable body? Are they for real, and do people really believe this?), and the ever-present "deadly" aspects that everyone needs... regardless of the fact that truly lethal techniques are innappropriate for what they are purporting to be ("You train 100% deadly striking all the time!" Really? And no-one dies, I suppose.... deadly....hmmm).

This is followed by the 10 "BRUTAL TRUTHS ABOUT REAL VIOLENCE", which basically say "you will be attacked, you don't know when, you don't know how, and anything you've trained won't work, if you've trained, you'll be killed, all assaults are going to kill you...."etc etc etc.

There's a lot more there to go through, but there is a far more important question here (although I feel I know the answer already): Why do you put any stock in this over-blown scare-mongering ad at all?

 

[mook jong man]

It is possible , I start to develop a " Liquid Body " after about ten Crown Lagers .
But whilst staggering home from the pub I can't say I am feeling too " Hyper-Balanced ".

 

[Explorer]

The FIRST question I'd ask these good people is what is my responsibility if the attacker is using a long contact weapon ... like a 6 or 7 foot stick ... or, worse, a distance weapon like a gun? What if they're throwing rocks at me or other innocents?

I suppose if your really break down my FIRST question, it's really three questions ... all having to do with distance and an escalating threat. Seems to me they haven't thought about it.

Best Wishes,

Explorer

 

[Andy Moynihan]

To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact
at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar
you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close
combat

This is a very brief quote, if you would like to explore the system more thoroughly please go to www.attackproof.com

That right there pretty much explains it all. Not these guys again....

 

[MJS]

To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact
at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar
you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close
combat

This is a very brief quote, if you would like to explore the system more thoroughly please go to www.attackproof.com

Some good points by people here. There are other phases to combat other than the physcal. Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.

What about the before phase? As I said, that is where the SD really begins. It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier. If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.

Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD. Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything. I'm more than happy with what I already train in. I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Some good points by people here. There are other phases to combat other than the physcal. Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.

What about the before phase? As I said, that is where the SD really begins. It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier. If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.

Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD. Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything. I'm more than happy with what I already train in. I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.

Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.

 

[MJS]

Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.

I believe it. Of course, I just looked at their homepage. Just as I suspected. I was going to pick on a few things I saw, but opted not to waste my time. Oh well....

 

[tellner]

I knew there was a reason I didn't like guns. They aren't "close quarters" enough.

It's not Real Self Defense(tm) unless you're putting yourself in as much danger as possible.

 

[Joab]

There's a lot more there to go through, but there is a far more important question here (although I feel I know the answer already): Why do you put any stock in this over-blown scare-mongering ad at all?

Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area.

Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.