At what point in the confrontation does 'self defense' apply?

[Bluesman]

If someone wont back off and you are feeling threatend then hit first and hit hard!!

 

[JowGaWolf]

For me self defense begins when I realize someone is trying to do harm to me. This often requires that I be aware. I have no problem with throwing the first punch if needed. I rather throw the first punch when things have gotten to the point where physical force is unavoidable. There's no need to wait for my enemy to attack me in this case. If you are in a situation where someone physically attacks you, then it means that your first line of self defense has failed big time.

 

[drop bear]

When do you actually haul out and crack someone? It is really tricky and depends a bit on your motivation.

So if you are just being randomly confronted i would sugest you just create space. And find an exit. It is very hard to launch forward and attack someone. Who is constantly keeping distance.

If i am tied up or in close i would go for them first. Because i am much less able to defend from there.

If i am being routinely harrased. Or harassed in a manner that affects my freedom or comfort. I may target them and just attack them.

If i am being paid. Then it will be at the point a job needs to be done.

Within that there are a whole bunch of responses i can go for. Things like just taking someones back and picking them up. To putting a hard beat down on the guy.


Otherwise i am always trying to fight for good position. So inside being verbally abused. I dont let them gain a good clinch. Let them get good head position. Or let them gain a uninterupted line between my head and their hands. Good position might also be pulling the confrontation towards my friends. So if it does kick. I have numbers.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So if you are just being randomly confronted

I don't get randomly confronted beyond verbal actions, and I rarely get the targeted verbal confrontations. This is probably because of how I carry myself and me using my non-physical self-defense methods of not looking like a target or at the very least not looking like an easy target. Even the drug dealers that approached me stayed out of my striking range. There are always exits but there may not always be an option to leave at that particular time. In the case of the drug dealers, I didn't leave the scene because I worked there. Leaving and running away would have embolden them making my situation worse for me and not better. Showing fear, weakness, or giving the impression that their actions control mine is not something you want to if you have to return to the same place of conflict the next day.

As for launching forward why would I do that if they are out of my striking range? If they are out of my striking range then there's no need for me to engage because they equally out of range for attacking me. I'll let people talk smack all day long and not be bothered by it as long as they do it outside of my zones of attack/defense. People verbally abusing me outside of my zones of attack/defense is not a threat that requires me to attack. Someone stepping in my zone talking a smack, is treated as if the smack talk is a diversion so that they can get of the first punch when I least expect it.

If i am tied up or in close i would go for them first. Because i am much less able to defend from there.

What do you do that even makes being tied up a scenario for you? Most people would rather just beat you into a mess and leave you on the ground.

 

[drop bear]

I don't get randomly confronted beyond verbal actions, and I rarely get the targeted verbal confrontations. This is probably because of how I carry myself and me using my non-physical self-defense methods of not looking like a target or at the very least not looking like an easy target. Even the drug dealers that approached me stayed out of my striking range. There are always exits but there may not always be an option to leave at that particular time. In the case of the drug dealers, I didn't leave the scene because I worked there. Leaving and running away would have embolden them making my situation worse for me and not better. Showing fear, weakness, or giving the impression that their actions control mine is not something you want to if you have to return to the same place of conflict the next day.

As for launching forward why would I do that if they are out of my striking range? If they are out of my striking range then there's no need for me to engage because they equally out of range for attacking me. I'll let people talk smack all day long and not be bothered by it as long as they do it outside of my zones of attack/defense. People verbally abusing me outside of my zones of attack/defense is not a threat that requires me to attack. Someone stepping in my zone talking a smack, is treated as if the smack talk is a diversion so that they can get of the first punch when I least expect it.

I used to work around night clubs and other areas where random attacks do occur. If you don't get them that is exelent. As far as creating space. I am suggesting it protects me because it is hard to effectively cross that gap.

If someone moves into range with the smack talk. I am happy to move back out of range again.

 

[drop bear]

What do you do that even makes being tied up a scenario for you? Most people would rather just beat you into a mess and leave you on the ground.

If I have been grabbed or clinched up on. Or confronted where I can't create space. This can still be at what the la de da set call the interview stage. So actual violence may not have occurred yet. But we may be position fighting here. Looking for the dominant grip or the inside arm.

So they might go arm around my neck. And I work for under hook.

I do a lot of this on the job because I have to hold a doorway. Or separate people.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If I have been grabbed or clinched up on. Or confronted where I can't create space. This can still be at what the la de da set call the interview stage. So actual violence may not have occurred yet. But we may be position fighting here. Looking for the dominant grip or the inside arm.

So they might go arm around my neck. And I work for under hook.

I do a lot of this on the job because I have to hold a doorway. Or separate people.

What is your job? Bouncer?

 

[drop bear]

What is your job? Bouncer?

Yeah among other things. I have quit now.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yeah among other things. I have quit now.

Now your perspectives of self-defense make more sense to me. The same limitation that you would have as a bouncer doing a job wouldn't exist outside the world of security. While the everyday person wouldn't need to show restraint someone that is working as a bouncer or police officer have the challenge of walking the fine line between breaking a leg "excessive force" and hyper extending a join "acceptable force."

I could get a way with breaking someone's arm in self-defense where a police officer would be in trouble. Police in the U.S. can body slam a person but then run the risk of losing his job or the department being sued for excessive force. Bouncers have the similar limitations as no one wants to have a bouncer that will cost the club or business millions of dollars in legal fees and a bad image. Here's a news video about a pregnant woman breaking a guy's leg after she chased him

 

[drop bear]

Now your perspectives of self-defense make more sense to me. The same limitation that you would have as a bouncer doing a job wouldn't exist outside the world of security. While the everyday person wouldn't need to show restraint someone that is working as a bouncer or police officer have the challenge of walking the fine line between breaking a leg "excessive force" and hyper extending a join "acceptable force."

I could get a way with breaking someone's arm in self-defense where a police officer would be in trouble. Police in the U.S. can body slam a person but then run the risk of losing his job or the department being sued for excessive force. Bouncers have the similar limitations as no one wants to have a bouncer that will cost the club or business millions of dollars in legal fees and a bad image. Here's a news video about a pregnant woman breaking a guy's leg after she chased him

I wouldn't do it if i can help it anyway. I have broken a guys arm and it isn't very nice.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wouldn't do it if i can help it anyway. I have broken a guys arm and it isn't very nice.

That's the thing about martial arts. It wasn't developed to be nice or kind.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We do not need to demonstrate our machismo to discuss the legitimate question (from 2013, so a necro-thread, but whatever).

Much of what I have read in this thread seems to be centered on what one's concept of self-defense happens to be. I think everyone's concept is a bit different, so before anyone can really answer the question, first they must establish what they are speaking of.

As others mentioned, if self-defense as a concept includes being on guard at all times, then self-defense starts the moment your feet hit the floor in the morning.

However, if we're talking about a physical confrontation, then the answer is different.

Theoretically (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice) everyone has the right to defend themselves from violence, and may use violence themselves to avoid being assaulted.

It seems to me that unfortunately, many have jumped on this notion and decided that 'the law' requires them to be punched first, before they can legally fight back, so therefore 'the law' is wrong and they promise to attack first. Yeah, no.

Generally speaking, the law does not require that a person wait to be hit before they can defend themselves. If a person raises their hand to you, that's assault in most places, and self-defense becomes a legal option as a response. In fact, if they make statements or take actions that would make a 'reasonable and prudent' person fearful that they were about to be struck, they have the right to self-defense then and there. In other words, if Joe Schmuckatelli tells me his is about to kick my booty, and he stands up and starts walking towards me, that's pretty much enough for me to defend myself in most locations (check your local laws, as they do vary). I do not have to wait for him to get in my face, raise his hand to me, or actually hit me. I am under no obligation to let myself be hit first before I can fight back. It is still 'self-defense' under the law if I take steps to stop Joe from making good on his threat. For example, a nice kick to the wedding tackle before he gets close enough to deck me.

So when does self-defense start (in the case described above)? It starts as soon as a person realizes that they are in danger of bodily injury. Note that this need not always require a physical altercation. If one can safely leave, that sounds like a pretty good option to me, and that does count as self-defense as far as I am concerned.

I will give you an example. A couple years back, I was on my way home from my dojo, fairly late at night, driving through a not-nice part of town. A guy passed me, honking and flipping me off, I presume because I was driving too slowly for him.

Because I have a self-defense mentality, I realized that there was a traffic light coming up and we were liable to get stopped at it. Sure enough, that's what happened. But I had planned for that; I came to a stop 20 feet behind him, not right up on him. And lo and behold, he jumped out of his car and started back towards mine.

Now, I realize that in the heroics department, my next actions are a distinct 'fail', but did not jump out of my car in full gi and teach that belligerant so-and-so a lesson. In fact, given the number of road rage incidents that end in people being shot, what I did was to use the space between our cars to turn around and drive the other way, leaving him standing in the street alone, screaming obscenities at me. Not very glamorous, eh? That, my friends, is self-defense. It started when he passed me cursing and honking and flipping me off and I realized that the next traffic light was liable to be the scene of an altercation.

Had he followed me after that, or had I been blocked in by other cars and not able to turn around, I would have considered other options, and chosen the one least likely to get me killed given whatever options I did have - for example, running over him, or driving into another car to get away, etc. My nearly-last option would have been to jump out of my car and engage in fisticuffs, but only if there was no other option.

And that's part of self-defense also. Evaluating threats and choosing the solution least likely to result in your own injury or death. Being good at physical defense is a very important thing. But any physical altercation can end badly, no matter how highly trained you are. I've worked in law enforcement, I've seen too many people dead on the ground from simply slipping in a parking lot and hitting their head when engaged in a fistfight with another drunk. It doesn't matter how high your rank is or what style you train in; anyone can slip and fall down and hit their head and that's all she wrote. Physical fighting always brings risk; avoid it to the extent possible if your goal is really to defend yourself. If you must fight, fight as hard as you can, fight to win, fight to end the engagement and leave as quickly as possible, but if you do not have to fight, if there is another option, take it. That, my friends, is self-defense.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you must fight, fight as hard as you can, fight to win, fight to end the engagement and leave as quickly as possible, but if you do not have to fight, if there is another option, take it

Pretty much what it says in my book.

 

[drop bear]

That's the thing about martial arts. It wasn't developed to be nice or kind.

 

[mograph]

... what I did was to use the space between our cars to turn around and drive the other way, leaving him standing in the street alone, screaming obscenities at me. Not very glamorous, eh? That, my friends, is self-defense.

Amen, brother Bill.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't subscribe to that. Responsibility is limited to ones group or affiliation Respecting others is not bound by group or one's affiliation. Even without responsibility there can be peace, but without respect there is only conflict.
It also has no bearing on the fact that martial arts were developed to inflict damage.

 

[mograph]

I don't subscribe to that. Responsibility is limited to ones group or affiliation Respecting others is not bound by group or one's affiliation. Even without responsibility there can be peace, but without respect there is only conflict.
It also has no bearing on the fact that martial arts were developed to inflict damage.

Well ... here's my take on that, at least based on my understanding of the concept of responsibility. In my opinion, we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group. In this modern world, (trying to stay general), we have seen that our actions have consequences across the globe; the greater the power to affect, the greater and farther-reaching the consequences which affect those outside our in-group. Even in a martial confrontation, I think that it's healthy for us to maintain a sense of responsibility to (not for) those with whom we engage, though they may not be members of our in-group. Of course, we do what's necessary in a situation, but we need to be aware of the broader consequences of our actions to ourselves and others, even those outside of the immediate situation.

Paradoxically, the result of such a sense of responsibility towards members of the out-group can serve to expand the in-group. To me, a lot of our problems can be solved by an expansion of our concept of our in-group.

One definition of in-group and out-group:
Ingroups and outgroups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JowGaWolf]

Well ... here's my take on that, at least based on my understanding of the concept of responsibility. In my opinion, we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group. In this modern world, (trying to stay general), we have seen that our actions have consequences across the globe; the greater the power to affect, the greater and farther-reaching the consequences which affect those outside our in-group. Even in a martial confrontation, I think that it's healthy for us to maintain a sense of responsibility to (not for) those with whom we engage, though they may not be members of our in-group. Of course, we do what's necessary in a situation, but we need to be aware of the broader consequences of our actions to ourselves and others, even those outside of the immediate situation.

Paradoxically, the result of such a sense of responsibility towards members of the out-group can serve to expand the in-group. To me, a lot of our problems can be solved by an expansion of our concept of our in-group.

One definition of in-group and out-group:
Ingroups and outgroups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We believe similar, it's just that responsibility means something totally different for me.
Keep reading if you want to see my perception of it. Otherwise you can stop here.

I used to think the same way until I started thinking about how the U.S. tries to be responsible for stuff only to make matters worse. The U.S. doesn't always goof on it, but when we do it tends to be big. So I went back and took a look at history through many cultures and countries and what I found is that leaders, people of power, and countries had responsibility but it didn't extend beyond their groups. I also found that there were groups who didn't want someone else to be responsible for them. Britain used to be responsible for the U.S. when they were only colonies of the British. The colonies decided that they wanted to be responsible for themselves and to be free of Britain's control. Then karma kicked in and the U.S. went to war with itself over similar issues where the group with power was responsible for the group that was complaining.

All of this was going on while Native Americans were being systematically wiped out. You see this pattern all through out history as one group has responsibility for those who they consider as part of their group. Part of a group could be locally like my kung fu school or globally like NATO or the relationship with allies. This pattern continues today all in the name of Responsibility to one's duties, group, country, allies, own desires. In the U.S. the Republican party believes that people should be responsible for their own actions, but when it comes to the Government being responsible for people, they say "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" "No socialism" Out of all of this the one thing that's rarely present is Respect for one's fellow man.

I'm pretty sure that many of us think we are responsible people but I know that many of us know of a group or groups that we would be glad not to be responsible for or of. We would just as soon rather wipe them off the planet than to help convert them to become more civilized so that they will act in the better interest of society. All throughout history there has been tons of responsibility and very little respect.

Those who we respect are almost always treated better than those who fall under the duties of responsibility.

I used to say this a lot "we're responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group" but now its "we should be respectful with our actions and take into consideration the effect that our actions may have on others be it good or bad." What is good for one group maybe really horrible for another.

Here's something to think about.

Here are some definitions for responsibility:
- something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc (morality and legality isn't universal it changes from culture to culture. The Native Americans were almost wiped out because of what one group though was morally right.)
- the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management. (within one's power, control, or management again this is done based on what group who has power see's fit)
-a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible (If a group feels that they are not responsible for another group then there is no obligation, regardless of the power they have.)
-good judgement and the ability to act correctly and make decisions on your own (judgement and "act correctly" is differs from culture to culture and from group to group)

Here are some definitions for respect
- a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
- deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment:
- to show regard or consideration for (this is where your perception of responsibility fits "responsible to those who are affected by our actions even though they may not be members of our in-group."
- to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If someone wont back off and you are feeling threatend then hit first and hit hard!!

You might want to check your local self-defense laws. Frankly, that's dangerous advice.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You might want to check your local self-defense laws. Frankly, that's dangerous advice.

Not really. Put your safety first. This is why we have court systems to work out the finer details.