Self Defense against an MMA trained aggressor

[Cryozombie]

Shoot them.

 

[KenpoTex]

This thread originated with "how to apply SD to an MMA'er", and my point all along has been to not assume an MMA'er will play by the rules on the street (seriously, go back and look and my first few replies). This was then met with "they will fight how they train", which got me on this tangent of "so will TMA'ers".

As I've said in other threads, I think this is a very valid point. It seems that most of us accept that we will "fight the way we train." This being the case, I think that we have to concede that most MMA'ers are going to be better prepared than most TMA'ers simply because they train with a higher level of contact and intensity.
They may be following their "rules," but their rules call for beating the snot out of someone with boxing combos, slamming each other to the floor with a variety of takedowns (wich ain't gonna be healthy for the recipient), and doing their best to rip pieces off, choke each other out, and G&P once they're on the ground. In contrast we have the majority of TMA people who spend their time doing touch-contact sparring, working their techniques, and performing what amounts to little more than a complex dance. The fact that their "rules" allow for eye, throat, and groin attacks is, IMO, pretty meaningless since they're usually going through the motions without the requisite "warrior-mindset."

...It's all about how bloody minded you're willing to be when the time comes.

There is many a black belt who is dead today because he had the technical proficiency to earn the blackness in his belt, but who, when the time came on the street, didn't have the necessary blackness in his HEART.

I like that!...I'm stealing it (with due credit of course )

 

[cfr]

As I've said in other threads, I think this is a very valid point. It seems that most of us accept that we will "fight the way we train." This being the case, I think that we have to concede that most MMA'ers are going to be better prepared than most TMA'ers simply because they train with a higher level of contact and intensity.
They may be following their "rules," but their rules call for beating the snot out of someone with boxing combos, slamming each other to the floor with a variety of takedowns (wich ain't gonna be healthy for the recipient), and doing their best to rip pieces off, choke each other out, and G&P once they're on the ground. In contrast we have the majority of TMA people who spend their time doing touch-contact sparring, working their techniques, and performing what amounts to little more than a complex dance. The fact that their "rules" allow for eye, throat, and groin attacks is, IMO, pretty meaningless since they're usually going through the motions without the requisite "warrior-mindset."

I personally don't have enough background in TMA to either agree or disagree. I would assume (possible quite incorrectly) there is a wide range of mindsets in the TMA arena, just like that of MMA.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

As I've said in other threads, I think this is a very valid point. It seems that most of us accept that we will "fight the way we train." This being the case, I think that we have to concede that most MMA'ers are going to be better prepared than most TMA'ers simply because they train with a higher level of contact and intensity.
They may be following their "rules," but their rules call for beating the snot out of someone with boxing combos, slamming each other to the floor with a variety of takedowns (wich ain't gonna be healthy for the recipient), and doing their best to rip pieces off, choke each other out, and G&P once they're on the ground. In contrast we have the majority of TMA people who spend their time doing touch-contact sparring, working their techniques, and performing what amounts to little more than a complex dance. The fact that their "rules" allow for eye, throat, and groin attacks is, IMO, pretty meaningless since they're usually going through the motions without the requisite "warrior-mindset."


I like that!...I'm stealing it (with due credit of course )

Feel free to steal it (with due credit of course)

 

[sgtmac_46]

"You will NOT rise to the occasion, you will default to the level of training you have mastered."

EXACTLY!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just for the record, I have not once said "you won't really fight how you train" or anything like it. A few of you seem to be suggesting that I diasagree with the "fight how you train" concept, that which I don't.

However, there seems to be a mindset that only MMA'ers will fall into this problem, and TMA'ers won't. Why is that?

On paper, an MMA'er would play by sport rules, and a TMA'er would chamber his punch to his hip, stop his strike an inch before the target, etc.. But the world is not on paper. Anyone who has the ability to think outside the box a bit during his training can change it up a bit to overcome these issues, despite what he's traning in.

Also, someone said "I touch the eyes" which is probably great training, but how many of us do this (either MMA or TMA)? Also, how many of us bite, scratch, strike to vitals, etc., during training? Probably not too many of us (again, regardless of which camp your in). Now before anyone spouts their supreme wisdom with something like "you couldn't do those things in training or you'd lose training partners", let me assure you I am already aware of that. :wink2:

I don't recall saying TMAer's wouldn't do the same.....if you've trained a crescent kick to solve all your problems, you'll keep trying it until taken to the ground and submitted if it fails. Likewise, if you've never trained an eye-gouge, it's unlikely you'll suddenly innovate it in the middle of a fight.

 

[sgtmac_46]

This thread originated with "how to apply SD to an MMA'er", and my point all along has been to not assume an MMA'er will play by the rules on the street (seriously, go back and look and my first few replies). This was then met with "they will fight how they train", which got me on this tangent of "so will TMA'ers".

What about 'everyone fights like they train' seems to have been missed?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So just go through your school/gym based training in your "off hours" and go through how you'd "spice up" what youve learned. It's all about how bloody minded you're willing to be when the time comes.

There is many a black belt who is dead today because he had the technical proficiency to earn the blackness in his belt, but who, when the time came on the street, didn't have the necessary blackness in his HEART when the time came on the street.

HEAR, HEAR!

R. Lee Ermey's drill instructor in 'Full Metal Jacket'

'It's a hard-heart that kills!'

In order to destroy an enemy, you have to WANT to destroy an enemy! Conflict is taking the heart and soul to a dark place.....good people reserve that darkness for only deserving special occassions, but anyone who truly wants to defend themselves against bad people have to learn to harness the darkness.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

HEAR, HEAR!

R. Lee Ermey's drill instructor in 'Full Metal Jacket'

'It's a hard-heart that kills!'

In order to destroy an enemy, you have to WANT to destroy an enemy! Conflict is taking the heart and soul to a dark place.....good people reserve that darkness for only deserving special occassions, but anyone who truly wants to defend themselves against bad people have to learn to harness the darkness.

I should more properly have said, "when the time came on the street, couldn't summon up the necessary blackness in his heart" ("didn't have" implies it's "always on")

And should not have repeated "when the time came". One must not think and type at once.

 

[KenpoTex]

HEAR, HEAR!

R. Lee Ermey's drill instructor in 'Full Metal Jacket'

'It's a hard-heart that kills!'

I guess we're playing the quote-game

"I do not kill with my gun...I KILL WITH MY HEART!" ~Roland Deschain "The Gunslinger" from Stephen King's Dark Tower series.

 

[PG Michael B]

Now remember, things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is. ~ Josey Wales

 

[allenjp]

Guess I'll get back into the fray here...

I'm all for having the mindset/mental placement/blackness of heart etc... to fight like a pitbull and leave nothing out of bounds when the situation warrants it.

But as to the "attack first" concept, many here would do well to remember that as far as the law in many places is concerned, being the first to launch an actual physical attack when only words or threats have been exchanged up to that point makes you guilty of assault. Especially if you display the level of ferocity being discussed here. If you use a weapon in said encounter and you attack first, it could be assault with a deadly weapon, or worse, attempted murder. Whoever it was that suggested "shoot them" should be aware that there can also be legal problems with shooting a lone attacker if they are unarmed, even if they initiate the physical attack. Also, once the threat is removed, (the attacker is retreating, or unconcious, or laying on the ground bleeding and not offering any more violence) you should stop your attack immediately.

I work with inmates in jails a lot, and I can tell you that many of them were only defending themselves from an attack, but since the attacker ended up worse off than them, they are the ones arrested. Especially if the other guy (or gal, I am not sexist) called the police first.

I was the one who suggested carrying weapons and using them, and I affirm that opinion. But it should be made clear that that is only in case you are actually physically attacked. It would be difficult to explain your actions to a police officer, if you were to bludgoen/stab/shoot someone simply for saying they were going to attack you, if they didn't actually do it.

So my humble advice is, wait until you are actually attacked, and then beat them so they never forget it. And always be the first to call the police once the threat is ended.

Always remember, as dangerous as street fights can be, jail fights are almost always worse...

 

[kwaichang]

Perhaps you should look into a carry permit.verkill:

 

[allenjp]

In california?

yeah, uhh...good luck with that.

I think it's the same in HI.

 

[kwaichang]

In california?
yeah, uhh...good luck with that.
I think it's the same in HI.

YIKES!!
I didn't notice the location.

Perhaps a heavy purse.:drinky:

 

[kwaichang]

Guess I'll get back into the fray here...
So my humble advice is, wait until you are actually attacked, and then beat them so they never forget it. And always be the first to call the police once the threat is ended.

Most places "a reasonable fear for your life" is enough to use force to stop it. I know each state's penal code is different, however, many have this concept expressed.

Waiting until your attacked isn't the best option, IMO. You might just get cold conked.:bangahead:

 

[allenjp]

Most places "a reasonable fear for your life" is enough to use force to stop it. I know each state's penal code is different, however, many have this concept expressed.

Waiting until your attacked isn't the best option, IMO. You might just get cold conked.:bangahead:

This language is the exact problem with this kind of law. It is too ambiguous. What is "a reasonable fear" is up to the interpretation of the police and the jury. In California at least I have personal knowledge and experience that words alone most often will not do to reach that threshold.

 

[kwaichang]

That's the problem with a too liberal legislature, IMO. However, words don't cause damage; but if the person is holding something that can do damage, or is a MOOSE, why then the circumstances are quite different.
Better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.

 

[jks9199]

This language is the exact problem with this kind of law. It is too ambiguous. What is "a reasonable fear" is up to the interpretation of the police and the jury. In California at least I have personal knowledge and experience that words alone most often will not do to reach that threshold.

There's a reason that justification of the use of force has not been quantified as black letter law. Let's take the same bad guy; a 5' 10", 230 lb Hells Angel, about 25 years old. No weapons displayed or involved (as unlikely as that is). Now let's look at a couple of potential victims: a 22 year old US Navy SEAL, a 32 year old male typical "weekend warrior" in decent shape, a 42 year old MMA champion (think Randy Couture), a 45 year old female police officer who's also a competitive athlete, and a 75 year old retiree. Each of them would be justified in using a different level of force against the same attack, like a grab and punch combo, from that biker... Some may not be justified in using anything but empty hands, while others would be probably be justified in using lethal force!

 

[allenjp]

That's the problem with a too liberal legislature, IMO. However, words don't cause damage; but if the person is holding something that can do damage, or is a MOOSE, why then the circumstances are quite different.
Better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six.

You are preaching to the choir on this one, and everything I said in that post about laws assumes a lone and unarmed attacker. If he even displays a weapon in a threatening manner, by all means have at him. If there are more than one, than the law will usually justify your fear. "USUALLY" being the key word here. And in those situations where you decide to act, you should only ever mention to the police that you were deathly afraid. not angry, not justified in your actions, afraid and only afraid...for your life. Many times your actions and words after an altercation serve as the basis for judging your mental state at the time. And that is the thing of key importance-your mental state. That, and whether or not a "reasonable" person would have had the same fear under the same circumstances.

The other thing you must remember is that the police are NOT necessarily your friends here. They often make themselves out to seem that way to get you to talk, but they will then turn around and use what you tell them to convict you many times.

Just what I have seen...