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

[Daniel Sullivan]

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.

Good question.

Kind of depends on how you are defining close quarters and how you define self defense. Justifiable is also open to interpretation. There is also the whole scenario of defense of another (friends, family, victim of beating in progress) which has its own set of issues.

In a court of law, the prosecution and the defense will do their best to either prove or disprove self defense, and it is not always the most factual side that wins, not to mention that laws vary enough from state to state that making a blanket statement is risky.

I will agree that seeking avenues of escape should be a first priority, and not for legal reasons. Chances are that an assailant has an advantage over you if he or she is pressing an attack. They probably wouldn't be doing so otherwise, so escape is generally your best option.

The nature of that advantage can be anything from a physical advantage (larger, stronger, faster, etc.), a damage multiplier (i.e. a weapon), a range advantage (projectile weapon, most likely a firearm, though I suppose a crossbow bandit is not out of the question), a surprise advantage (the attacker was laying in wait), a terrain advantage, or strength in numbers (i.e. friends). Or several at once (i.e. larger, stronger guys with guns and knives).

Given the variety of situations that one can find themselves in, I think the school's letter is a bit inaccurate, but without actually having seen the statement in context, I won't draw any conclusions.

Personally, I feel that the defense of one's self goes far beyond the physical altercation and begins with one's own habits and behavioral patterns. Often, those who seek to do us harm take advantage or have access to us as a result of our habits and behavioral patterns in order to do so.

There is no alertness/prevention skill or skill set that will guarantee that a violent encounter will not befall us. But we can minimize the chances of a violent encounter before hand by exercising a modicum of common sense.

I did not read this thread in its entirety, so it is possible that parts of my post have already been addressed.

Daniel

 

[Deaf Smith]

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.

Depends on several things:

A) can the still reach you with whatever they have as a weapon. Gun? Knife? Club? Chain?

B) Can they outrun you? And thus they can still reach you.

C) If other potential victems are there, are they still in danger? Can they run?

And just as important, in places like Texas, with Stand-Your-Ground laws, the person who is there legaly, and did not start any argument, DOES NOT HAVE TO RUN. And it is still considered self defense as they were there legaly and it is the attacker that just yield.

So you see, 'justifiable self defense', means different things in different places.

Deaf

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. While I certainly appreciate your input guys, it may have paid to read through the thread first.... it's only 2 and a half pages, after all.

Daniel, the context (and source) is well discussed, including a link to their website to make up your own mind.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hmm. While I certainly appreciate your input guys, it may have paid to read through the thread first.... it's only 2 and a half pages, after all.

Glad I posted before reading it. My answer would have essentially remained the same, minus the mention of weapons.

Daniel, the context (and source) is well discussed, including a link to their website to make up your own mind.

I looked at it after posting. Still would not have changed my response to the OP.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

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

The attackproof site reminded me of this: http://www.theselfdefenseco.com/about_self_defense.asp?gclid=CLyF4LS2mKICFRBx5QodPiLDXQ

This is one of the ads that flashes at the top of MT, for what its worth.

Daniel

 

[TigerCraneGuy]

One of the first "Reality Based" SD books I ever picked up was the one for this system... After reading it I felt two things 1) if I ever used ANY of the nonsense in the book I'd end up dead, beaten to a pulp or in jail for aggravated assault and or murder and 2) really stupid for having plunked down my money for something so useless as this.
The author actually advocated flat out tearing someone to shreds if they attack you, eye gouging as a first step. "You didn't ask to be assaulted, so he volunteered for the serious injuries he's going to get" type BS. As far as I recall, there was no mention of getting away before the bad guy was a quivering puddle on the floor.

1) Bought and read it too;

2) Have since purchased superior material on WWII type combatives (re Kelly McCaan);

3) Have since started training in Kenpo again backed up by stealing ideas from Combatives and Southnarc's Managing Unknown Contact methodology; and therefore

4) Completely agree with you, and am NO longer interested in AP, mate!

Have a good one

 

[myusername]

I agree with what others have said so far about how limiting the original statement is.

As for the premise that as soon as they move out of range it is no longer self defence. What nonsense. On top of what others have said about loved ones, weapons etc etc this totally ignores "multiples." If you have more than one attacker it may be perfectly acceptable and still self defence to target one attacker and actually close space yourself and move into range to do so.

Also, on top of what others have said I feel that it completely ignores some of the skills of "posturing" which I feel is a very important self defence tool. There are certain situations (I was unfortunately in one last week!) where your attacker has doubts over whether he can handle you after he has initiated a conflict. The attacker may posture and threaten you just out of range trying to make himself feel bigger and psyching himself up to actually physically attack you. Posturing for self defence purposes means basically being scarier than your attacker to make the most of their doubts. You have to assert yourself in that situation as if you demonstrate weakness by turning tail and trying to flee or acting passively this will remove your attackers doubts and they will move in for the kill. Running or acting passively can be dangerous and like a red rag to a bull.

My personal view on posturing is that it is only to be used when you sense your attacker/ or attackers are having doubts over whether they are strong enough to beat you. Be prepared to move to the physical though as it can backfire. Pretending to be passive (and by this I don't mean running) is appropriate if the person appears to be intent on attacking you and is closing space. Put your hands up in a shield/fence and tell them you don't want trouble. Whilst they are mentally congratulating themselves bang them on the chin!

I would say only run if you feel it is safe to do so and often it isn't until the threat has been neutralised.