Life Changing Attacks...Worth it or Not?

[c2kenpo]

I think you guys missed the point of what I was saying once again. But I may not have been clear about it. So let me try in shorter less verbose terms.
As far as the legal ramifications I was simply using metaphor for example.

I will NEVER contradict what ANYONE here says they will do if "X" happens. Why? Because I am not them. Simple you can make your own choices and I mine. But the thread was Life Changing Attacks and are they worth it or not.

My reason for my statement was AGRESSIVE THOUGHT PATTERNS that were being shared in the previous thread.

Here would be an example...
Bar / resturante etc...spilled drink leads to verbal exchange on both sides, escalating into a fight. Who strikes who and the details of who swung first, and where are IRRELEVANT to the topic.
He swings....and you have an ARSENAL of martial arts training that lets you make the next decision. But you have been arguing and you are EMOTIONALLY involved in the situation now. Do you have the right to make a LIFE CHANGE then? Even tho a bottle or club may have been involved. The next question to give thought is, Are you prepared to accept the harsh reality of that choice.

If you were attacked, home invaded, attempted rape, etc...I would EXPECT nothing less than the posts I have read on this board. I too am a father and husband and quite the right sided person on crime and punishment. I am not questioning the validity of someones right to defend themselvs as they saw fit, I would not want my judgement questioned either when it came to the safety of my family.

I hope everyone can see that what I was asking was to look at the situation of your fight / attack and see what we CAN DO and what we CHOOSE to do. Just another way of expanding your own martial art.

I hope that helps in understanding what my thoughts were.

David Gunzburg

 

[MJS]

Here would be an example...
Bar / resturante etc...spilled drink leads to verbal exchange on both sides, escalating into a fight. Who strikes who and the details of who swung first, and where are IRRELEVANT to the topic.
He swings....and you have an ARSENAL of martial arts training that lets you make the next decision. But you have been arguing and you are EMOTIONALLY involved in the situation now. Do you have the right to make a LIFE CHANGE then? Even tho a bottle or club may have been involved. The next question to give thought is, Are you prepared to accept the harsh reality of that choice.

Again, in this situation, it comes down to using the same force thats being used against you. A block into a counter strike or lock/submission, IMO, is a good choice here. Now, if that does nothing but make him madder, and if he picks up a bottle and tries to hit you with it, then the force level just went up. A groin kick, elbow to the head, etc. is more appropriate here.

If you were attacked, home invaded, attempted rape, etc...I would EXPECT nothing less than the posts I have read on this board. I too am a father and husband and quite the right sided person on crime and punishment. I am not questioning the validity of someones right to defend themselvs as they saw fit, I would not want my judgement questioned either when it came to the safety of my family.

Ok, I see that we're both in agreement here! It just seemed to me, that before, you were not justifying certain actions in past posts.

I hope everyone can see that what I was asking was to look at the situation of your fight / attack and see what we CAN DO and what we CHOOSE to do. Just another way of expanding your own martial art.

Yes, I see what you're saying here also. I do believe though, that we were using the appropriate actions depending on the situation.

Mike

 

[c2kenpo]

Great Mike.

I was seeing a BIG CONFUSION BUBBLE. Sometimes I confuse myself.

In every situation it is different and how we react and what we choose to do is tantamount to the end results. I was speaking on the moral obligation that we have with the knowledge base we contain to simply look beyond the event and see the bigger picture.

If you see "X" force, how you choose to apply return force is your choice. Leads back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, points of viewetc....topic for another thread.
If you just give him a bop in the nose and that works then great!
But if you WANT to graft 5-6 techs together on the same guy then here are a few of my PERSONAL favorites..(pulling sheet of paper out of notebook)

:uhyeah:

David Gunzburg

 

[MJS]

C2Kenpo-

I confuse myself at times too! :idunno: LOL! Speaking of another topic....(the toruble maker that I am) you mentioned different view points. I think it'd be kind of interesting to discuss what the other people who happen to witness this situation unfold, would think. I mean, if it did go to a jury, and witnesses from the bar are called to the stand, what do you think that their outlook on the situation would be?

Mike

 

[MA-Caver]

Somewhere on MT I posted a reply which contains Stephen R. Donaldson's "Oath Of Peace" from the Thomas Covenant series.
Do a quick search on "Oath Of Peace" and you'll see a method I use to help determine "how far I should go" when attacked.
I've been the victim of several violent crimes before and had to use my skills to allow me posting here today. I didn't care at the moment what I was doing to my attacker as long as WHAT I was doing was going to S-T-O-P them from what they were wanting to do to me... hurt/kill me.
I haven't been attacked in a very-very long while because I've learned how to watch and ward myself from being placed into such situations. I've also learned the "Bugs Bunny" method of talking my way out of (almost) anything.
A friend of mine at work gotten into an altercation recently. One that required him punching his assailant hard enough to break his hand. What was left of the "other - guy" had the police asking (my friend) why did he have to take it that far. He replied non-committedly that the guy swung at him and he was defending himself...but I told him to next time tell the cops that the guy wouldn't stop. They'll usually understand that concept.
Again, I'll state that no-one person knows for 100% certianty what they will do in any given situation. They can plan, train, practice, reflect, imagine, ponder, wonder and even fantasize what could happen and/or how they'll respond. But when the push comes... the outcome (read: Reality) is usually very different. IMO, the main reason is you just can-not predict (for 100% certianty) what the other guy will do. In the dojo, practice, sparring... sure you got a better idea. But out there....
Do what you have to do but go only as far as necessary to stop the assailant from doing what they wanted to do to you. If killing is necessary then so be it. You have to be the judge of when to do that.

:asian:

 

[8253]

This is interesting, seeing both sides of the story. I usually do look at both sides of the story however when a person is being physically attacked they have the right to defend themselves to the extent that the threat is removed up to and including deadly force. As far as the attackers ailments the dumb*** shouldnt have been trying to attack someone in the first place. If he gets broken ribs during one of his attacks oh well, he still shouldnt be trying to attack someone. The attacker shouldnt be around your house looking for an open window to climb into to attack you or he might get broken ribs. As far as them having a drink with you earlier, it still dosent give them the right to attack you now. The bottom line is if someone attacks you it dosent matter what kind of shape they are in at the end as long as you can go home without injury you have survived the encounter the right way. If they want to sue me later, let them, who cares. I will still have my health and my family at the end.

 

[KenpoTex]

7starmantis: what is the "make my day law?" I'm originally from Texas and this is one I'm not familiar with (note: I'm not questioning your accuracy, just trying to clarify the term).

 

[c2kenpo]

C2Kenpo-

I confuse myself at times too! :idunno: LOL! Speaking of another topic....(the toruble maker that I am) you mentioned different view points. I think it'd be kind of interesting to discuss what the other people who happen to witness this situation unfold, would think. I mean, if it did go to a jury, and witnesses from the bar are called to the stand, what do you think that their outlook on the situation would be?

Mike

Mike, that was the thread I was working on but a bit stuck on how to really implement it. The biggest problem I have to begin that thread is "Who's on first??"
How do you see it...etc..maybe we have to pick something from current events ..this is really going to take some thought.

Better get some more coffee.

Dave Gunzburg

 

[7starmantis]

I guess I addressed the situation like I do all fighting situations. To me, if your involved in a fight its because of either one of two things. You were attacked and didn't have time to try and de-escilate the situation or you are in the wrong. It sounds harsh but the example of the spilled drink and words being exchanged...that is where I become liable, did I return those words? If so, I am a little to blame for the fight as well, and in that case breaking the law myself by fighting. When I talk about being attacked I just allways assume it the first of the two reasons. I'll get up and move if I have to to avoid a fight at a bar, why not?

7starmantis: what is the "make my day law?" I'm originally from Texas and this is one I'm not familiar with (note: I'm not questioning your accuracy, just trying to clarify the term).

I'll have to go find the actual code for the law to be precise, but basically it was a law put into place that loosens the responsibility of deadly force inside a residence. We just finished studying it in my government class and we went over it in my concieled handgun course as well. It gives the home owner the right to shoot and kill an intruder inside the home during all hours of the day or night with or without an armed attacker. There are stipulations, but a buddy of mine who works for the FBI made the joke that it is better if you kill someone to drag them into your house in texas so you dont go to jail.

Basically it says the law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there. I think some other states have similar laws....kansas maybe?


7sm

 

[c2kenpo]

I guess I addressed the situation like I do all fighting situations. To me, if your involved in a fight its because of either one of two things. You were attacked and didn't have time to try and de-escilate the situation or you are in the wrong. It sounds harsh but the example of the spilled drink and words being exchanged...that is where I become liable, did I return those words? If so, I am a little to blame for the fight as well, and in that case breaking the law myself by fighting. When I talk about being attacked I just allways assume it the first of the two reasons. I'll get up and move if I have to to avoid a fight at a bar, why not?

7sm

DING!! 7sm that is EXACTLY what this thread should have been about.
:asian:
Great post.

Dave Gunzburg

 

[KenpoTex]

I'll have to go find the actual code for the law to be precise, but basically it was a law put into place that loosens the responsibility of deadly force inside a residence. We just finished studying it in my government class and we went over it in my concieled handgun course as well. It gives the home owner the right to shoot and kill an intruder inside the home during all hours of the day or night with or without an armed attacker.
Basically it says the law recognizes that citizens have the right to expect absolute safety within their homes. The occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly force, against another person who makes an uninvited entry into the home and either has or might commit a crime there. I think some other states have similar laws....kansas maybe?
7sm

Gotcha...This is also referred to in many places as the "castle doctrine" ("a man's home is his castle") and is part of the law in many places, including Missouri where I live now. I believe (as with most of our laws) that it dates back to an old English law regarding the defense of your home.

There are stipulations, but a buddy of mine who works for the FBI made the joke that it is better if you kill someone to drag them into your house in texas so you dont go to jail.

As far as dragging someone inside your house, that's kind of "iffy." I have heard the same statement tossed around by people (including LEO's) that I have known but they're not speaking literally. For one thing, why did you kill him outside your house? I'm not saying that you'll never be threatened when you're sitting on your front porch, but if you drag him inside it's going to be obvious that you tampered with the (alleged) crime-scene. When you hear comments like this the implication is that you are better off if you were inside your home, not that you should actually drag them in.

 

[marshallbd]

This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.

I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.

Any ideas on this?

7sm

I think in an actual life or death struggle, you have everyright to defend yourself to the fullest extent using WHATEVER means is necessary to END the encounter (preferable by leaving as soon as the attacker is unable to follow) If you can demonstrate that you left as soon as the attack ended you'll be fine. I dont know much technique but If I am attacked I will do whatever it takes to walk away and deal with the "sue you" mentality at that time. That being said, I will ALWAYS use de-escalation attempts such as non-threatening stances and verbal que's such as a calm voice and calming language to walk away without the violence. :asian:

 

[7starmantis]

As far as dragging someone inside your house, that's kind of "iffy." I have heard the same statement tossed around by people (including LEO's) that I have known but they're not speaking literally. For one thing, why did you kill him outside your house? I'm not saying that you'll never be threatened when you're sitting on your front porch, but if you drag him inside it's going to be obvious that you tampered with the (alleged) crime-scene. When you hear comments like this the implication is that you are better off if you were inside your home, not that you should actually drag them in.

Yeah, I didn't mean for anyone to take this literally, like I said, he was saying it jokingly.

7sm

 

[Cyrus]

I fight based on a the rules that my attacker makes up he/she (although i don't know if i could physically bring myself to attack a female even in self defense.)
makes the rules for me they want to fight with no weapons fine by me none 1on1 thats fine too. I go "all out" so to speak whenever the odds are against me attacker has weapon, more than one attacker, attacker likes to bite, gouge eyes ect... other than that i try to keep it as nonlethal and/or nondetrimental to the persons existence in the longrun as possible. Meaning keep limbs intact, no permanent damage to vital areas. I still fight like i would normally but that minute bit of restraint that keeps me from using any of the above attacks is what keeps me seperated from others.. and from jail.

 

[7starmantis]

The only problem I have with that method is once your opponent decides to take the fight to that next "level" your eye may already be gouged out, or your throat slashed, or knee broken. Everything is riding on a huge "IF" you can defend their attack first and then deliver one of your own.

7sm

 

[FasterthanDeath]

When it comes to getting attacked, its all about the threat of force. If a man has no weapons and just attacks me out of anger, drunkeness, or wants my possesions I do what I can to get away. Thats all you can do. You do just the amount of force to get away. And thats what you stick by. If poking his/her eye out allows you to get away, you get away. Same with breaking their arm. But if they have a weapon. I feel that they are trying to kill me. So I will do what is necessary to disarm them and get away. But if they persue, I will have to kill them first. But in the many bar brawls and street fights I have been in, noone gets past a broken limb. Thats ususally the "breaking" point. No pun intended.

 

[Han-Mi]

This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.

7sm

I would never hold back a technique if the other person had a weapon. That is true life and death stuff, no reason to hold back if they are willing to kill/severely injure you. If they don't have a weapon, I would have to judge it by how much of a threat they are, big muscular guy gets less courtesy than a little punk. This is all assuming I keep my head about me.

 

[ppko]

This came from another thread but I would like to discuss it further. There is a consensus among MAist here that in a life or death situation you must still be careful as to what type of technique you use. This is based on the "sue" mentality of our generation and society. What I'm questioning is if it is really smart to decide in the middle of a mugging or knife attack to "hold back" on a certain technique so as not to hurt the attacker too bad.

I'm of the opinion that holding back could mean injury or death to yourself. Now I'm not saying go out and poke out the eyes of every person who flips you the bird, but in a true self defense situation isn't it more of a weakness to be thinking of what techniques not to do rather than just letting your opponent dictate what technique your body performs? Am I making sense? It seems like stopping yourself from performing a technique might give the attacker an opening or an advantage.

Any ideas on this?

7sm

Life or death do what you have to do to survive.

PPKO