Contemplating Self Defense...

[Guardian]

It's pretty simple in my book, if they attack me, no matter what I do, it's self-defense on my part for they initiated the aggression, not me.

Now, I do agree that you can cross a line in defending yourself and we have discussed that possibility quite abit here and outside of here I would venture to say. If I defend myself and put my attacker down and he/she does not want to continue, then that's self-defense. Now if I knowingly continue to punish him/her when I know they cannot or do not want to continue, then it goes to what you referred to as assault.

 

[jks9199]

Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.

Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

Granted, any trained fighter knows the danger zones that could likely lead to the death of their attacker, palm strikes to the nose, neck breaks, certain areas of the head, blood chokes, airway chokes, there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.

When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed. Our training is diverse, we teach you many ways to avoid having to use lethal force in defending yourself as well as how to apply lethal force when you have no other choice. Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it. Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.

If you choose to address use of force issues, there are two aspects you need to acquire proper training and education on. First -- the legal. Your questions in this thread really suggest that you DO NOT understand the legal issues surrounding use of force very well. There are plenty of reference materials available; avail yourself of them. Second -- the moral. I know people who are true and committed pacifists; they'd rather be injured than injure someone else. And I know people who would smash your skull as easily and as happily as they sit down to dinner. You need to be able to help your students assess their own moral compass with regards to using force on someone else.

Your situation is a fairly blatant example of use of excessive force, and I completely agree that in the situation that you have given you've gone over the line. But to expand on some of the options you have given:



If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not? Why?

Is "throwing the knife away" something you would recommend? is "putting yourself on equal grounds" something you would recommend?

Lamont

It's actually not that simple... If the disarm and stab were on continuous action, with no time to reassess, you may well be okay, in a legal sense. If there was a significant pause or you chased the guy to stab him... big problems loom.

It's pretty simple in my book, if they attack me, no matter what I do, it's self-defense on my part for they initiated the aggression, not me.

Now, I do agree that you can cross a line in defending yourself and we have discussed that possibility quite abit here and outside of here I would venture to say. If I defend myself and put my attacker down and he/she does not want to continue, then that's self-defense. Now if I knowingly continue to punish him/her when I know they cannot or do not want to continue, then it goes to what you referred to as assault.

A few general points (discussed at length in other threads...); the usual caveat that this is NOT legal advice and you should only get legal advice from a qualified attorney apply:

Lethal force is any force reasonably likely to cause serious bodily harm or death. You are generally justified in using sufficient force to stop an imminent threat; this typically justifies using like force for civilians, but you may be justified in using more force in specific situations. It's not a "if x, then y is justified" calculus. Too much turns on the specifics of the attack.

Also, as a general rule, you're permitted to DEFEND yourself. Once the attacker stops attacking or you reinitiate the conflict -- you become the attacker. Note that law enforcement officers have a different duty than a civilian; a civilian's task is to GET AWAY, not subdue and restrain an attacker!

 

[shesulsa]

Admin Note: Thread moved to General Self-Defense forum.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
Assist. Administrator

 

[KenpoTex]

haven't read the whole thread but here's a few thoughts on real self-defense after seeing the original post:

• The best defense is a good offense.
• It changes from self-defense to assault only when they have indicated that they do not wish to continue, or when they are no longer capable of presenting a threat.
• teaching limb destructions, eye, throat, and groin attacks etc. are just examples of some of the most efficient and effective methods for STOPPING THE THREAT. Remember, we're dealing with someone who is trying to rob, rape, kill, or kidnap us and is willing to use violence to accomplish his goal.
• As far as I'm concerned, someone who is serious about self-defense will be armed to the extent that they are legally allowed (from flashlight and OC-spray all the way up to knives and a pistol depending on your circumstances). To ignore the advantage afforded by weapons, you are limiting your options and reducing your chances of success in the face of a violent criminal threat.

 

[MJS]

Here's a situation that can turn bad in seconds.

Your walking home from the corner store when someone comes out of a back alley and pulls a knife on you demanding your money and other valuables. You raise your hands up and tell the guy you don't want any troubles as he approaches and then using your training, you disarm the man's knife, step in, and plunge that knife into his chest or neck.

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

Granted, any trained fighter knows the danger zones that could likely lead to the death of their attacker, palm strikes to the nose, neck breaks, certain areas of the head, blood chokes, airway chokes, there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.

When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed. Our training is diverse, we teach you many ways to avoid having to use lethal force in defending yourself as well as how to apply lethal force when you have no other choice. Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it. Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.

I came across this. Certainly an interesting read. Now, let me pose a scenario to you. As you round the corner and this person pulls the knife, you have a permit to carry a handgun. You pull the gun and shoot the person. Now, you're faced with deadly force, and some will say that you're in the right to shoot. Obviously the difference in the original situation is using his own weapon against him.

As I said before...it is up to the individual to assess each situation. Chances are, if this goes to court, we're already going to be under the microscope due to our training. I would say that if the choice was to disarm and in the process cause serious harm to the attacker, ie: a broken arm or nose, compared to killing the guy, I'd rather opt for the first. But given the situation, I feel that you'd be in the right.

Just wanted to add this: Speaking only for myself here, my health and well being as well as the well being of my wife and family take top priority. In todays world, we can't assume that handing over the keys to our car or our money is going to mean that we're going to walk away. Many times once you comply, you still get shot. Do you want to take that chance?

That being said, I'm going to do what I feel is necessary. This is not to say that someone throwing a punch at you deserves to end up in ICU, but once a weapon is brought into the picture, they've just raised the odds. I like to live by the motto: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[jks9199]

I came across this.

I have my issues with Jim Wagner. He just added plagiarism; the color codes he discusses are simply a take on the well known Cooper's Color Code. Even so -- he's presenting a decent model. One thing I like is that he's aimed it at civilians; you can't simply take a LE use of force model and apply it to civilians. Cops job is to take control of and arrest a person; a civilian's job is to get out of the self-defense situation alive, with minimal harm.

Certainly an interesting read. Now, let me pose a scenario to you. As you round the corner and this person pulls the knife, you have a permit to carry a handgun. You pull the gun and shoot the person. Now, you're faced with deadly force, and some will say that you're in the right to shoot. Obviously the difference in the original situation is using his own weapon against him.

As I said before...it is up to the individual to assess each situation. Chances are, if this goes to court, we're already going to be under the microscope due to our training. I would say that if the choice was to disarm and in the process cause serious harm to the attacker, ie: a broken arm or nose, compared to killing the guy, I'd rather opt for the first. But given the situation, I feel that you'd be in the right.

Just wanted to add this: Speaking only for myself here, my health and well being as well as the well being of my wife and family take top priority. In todays world, we can't assume that handing over the keys to our car or our money is going to mean that we're going to walk away. Many times once you comply, you still get shot. Do you want to take that chance?

That being said, I'm going to do what I feel is necessary. This is not to say that someone throwing a punch at you deserves to end up in ICU, but once a weapon is brought into the picture, they've just raised the odds. I like to live by the motto: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

I'm personally sick of that saying. I'd rather avoid either -- and it IS possible to defend yourself within the law. And it's possible to learn enough about the legal system to keep your actions within the bounds of the law.

With that in mind -- I do agree with the mindset you express. If I'm attacked -- I'm defending myself or those under my protection, with everything necessary to end the attack. Depending on the scenario, that may be running away and calling the cavalry, it might be simply evading or containing my drunken idiot brother -- or it may be using lethal force. I address the legal concerns by learning them and studying them, and incorporating them into my training, so that when I need to use them under pressure, I don't have to worry about figuring it out.

 

[kaizasosei]

theres no time to think much when a situation arises. better to think about it really realistically and honestly beforehand as well as also train/act accordingly.

j

 

[KenpoTex]

Okay, I'll tackle this one from the top now that I've had time to read the whole thread.

and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.

Then what exactly is your definition of "self-defense?"

"At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?

This one's been answered by a few people. The line is crossed when you continue your action after they are no longer a threat. This can be because they somehow indicated that they are no longer pursuing their attack, or because you have rendered them incapable of continuing.

while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training.

That's a good thing

I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly.

Because real self-defense is not training to deal with a bully at school or an idiot at the bar (though those are situations that should be addressed) but rather to deal with a violent criminal attack.

there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?

Your state laws define what is/is not deadly/lethal force and when such force is appropriate. Check your local laws and if you're unclear, pay for an hour with an attorney who specializes in criminal law.

I think for the most part defining Self Defense is based on the individual, their perspective on the situation and their ability to exercise control in the force they use while defending themselves.

Pretty much...so why wouldn't it follow that there are situations where a high level of force is called for?

Perhaps I worry too much, but I just can't see cutting off someone's arm so they can't swing at you, or bludgeoning them senselessly when you could have simply taken out a knee cap and stepped back from the situation.

So, in your opinion, knocking someone unconscious is worse than blowing out their knee and causing them permanent damage?

I do think however that in certain martial arts, the methods to achieve such an outcome should probably not be considered "Self Defense" techniques as they most certainly step beyond the normal line between defending and assault...
Is it feasible to call your martial arts training "Self Defense" if the martial arts school your studying in focuses on techniques and training that make you the aggressor rather than the defender?

Once again, the line between defender and aggressor is a legal distinction and depends on whether the threat is still present. Agression by the attacker must be met with aggression, otherwise you're wasting your time.

More or less about crossing that aggressor/defender line.

In one aspect, I don't want to teach my students to be overly aggressive, after all this is supposed to be "Self Defense" but on the other hand, I think there is a very real need to know some of the techniques and to encourage a certain degree of aggression. The problem is, I'm not sure how to clearly describe where that line is, I can only really point out to them when you'll know you've crossed it.

So is this one of those "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it" situations . Seriously, and I mean no offense here, if you are an instructor who claims to be teaching self-defense, you need to have this sorted out. You need to understand the legalities of the issue based on the laws in your area (like I said, go talk to a lawyer). And you need to work on your understanding of what constitutes self-defense in the context of a criminal assault. Instructors who have an unrealistic, improper, or incomplete view of the situation end up doing their students a disservice because they end up teaching material that may not be appropriate for the situation. I believe that the idea of "unreasonable force" can apply to using too little force just as much as it applies to using too much force.

Now, I could have simply disarmed him and threatened him with his own knife, or I could have thrown the knife away to put us on even grounds, I've been trained to disarm an opponent and would have no longer been a life or death situation.

If he continued the attack, I don't feel that throwing the weapon away to "put us on even grounds" would be advisable. Read through this thread as this issue was addressed specifically there.

there's a wide variety of different ways that you could kill some one voluntarily or involuntarily. I think we all take an inherent risk when we are in a confrontation, there's no guarantee that someone isn't going to get severely hurt or killed, this isn't a sparring match with rules, its a real world fight.

That applies to us just as it does to the bad guy...that is why our response to a violent attack MUST be overwhelming violence to stop the attack. We don't want to be the one that gets severely hurt or killed.

When I am able to officially teach classes of my own, I've decided to take the time to sit down with my class and to talk to them about using lethal force in situations. They need to know and understand what this means and what it could mean for them should their attacker get killed.

As I said before, YOU need to be clear on this yourself before you try to teach others.

Each situation is different and requires a different approach in the act of defending yourself, and you have to be able to recognize this and work with it.

Agreed, the drunk at the bar or the bully in high-school may not require the same response as a meth-head with a screw-driver at 2:00 am in the gas-station parking lot.

Just because you can end a life or death situation by using lethal force doesn't mean you have to or should, it just really depends on if you have a choice or not.

hmm...As I said before, your response should be proportional to the attack. If someone attacks me with deadly force, I'm going to respond in kind (probably by putting 4 or 5 rounds into their high-center chest followed by more to the head if they don't go down after the first burst)

If you successfully disarm the guy, and "threaten him with his own knife" and he comes after you, are you in a deadly force situation or are you not? Why?

At that point, I wouldn't consider it a deadly force situation for me, I have control of the weapon he tried to use against me, the largest of the threats is over. However unlikely that it is that he would actually want to continue after what just happened, should that happen I would use my training to defend myself, break contact once I was able, and get away from the situation.

IMO, as I said in the thread I linked for you earlier, his [attempted] use of a weapon is an indication that he intends to do you serious harm. If he continues his attack after you have disarmed him, his intention has not changed...it's still a deadly force situation.

Once I have control of the weapon I can't say that I would feel this was a life or death situation any longer, but then again, I have confidence enough in my abilities to be able to disable the attacker should he proceed

If that's the way you feel, so be it...however, I don't think that's necessarily the best thing to be teaching.

he had a knife which was his tool to accomplish his goal, now the person he attacked has it and is threatening him with it, most attackers would back off and run at that point unless they are strung out crack addicts or are just plain crazy.

And if he does not run and is one of those who is "a strung out crack addict or just plain crazy" do you feel that you can handle him empty handed? (the fact that you were lucky enough to disarm him notwithstanding). EDP's and those under the influence of narcotics are scary people to deal with as I'm sure the LEO's on the board will confirm.

The training itself from what I saw was and still is brutal, but if used properly, I do agree yeah, it could be considered "Self defense" rather than use of "combative training."

Just "nit-picking" your terms here...As far as I'm concerned, good self-defense training should not be much different than "combative training." Sadly, the "martial" has been taken out of martial-arts these days leaving people with a system that is about as effective in dealing with a violent attack as ballroom dancing would be. I strongly recommend you read "Principles of Personal Defense" by Col. Jeff Cooper for a good rundown of the proper self-defense mindset.

Okay, I'm done...

Seriously, I'm not trying to pick on you. In fact, I commend you for confronting the issues and trying to find some answers and clarify your thinking. My main point is that when we are faced with violence we can not afford to "be nice" or have any mercy for our attacker until the threat has been neutralized and we have to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve our goal of stopping the threat. The "peaceful warrior"/Mr. Miyagi crap sounds great in theory but it doesn't work too well if you find yourself facing some guy who just spent the last few years in prison (probably lifting weights most of that time) and now sees you as his ticket to his next "fix."

 

[chinto]

ok, first of all if you are really worried about it, consult an attorney and ask about your state / national laws dealing with self defense, and any restrictions there in.
that said, the law in most western states of the United States of America is the reasonable man doctrine. that comes down to basically, 1 would a normal person have been in fear of attack or injury or death? 2 would he have done a lot less harm then that and or used less force? so if you have a 10 year old kid with a switch come at you and you kick his ribs in or brake his arm and kick his knee cap off.. you are provably in real trouble.. now make that a larger stick and a kid or 15 or a man of 20 and you do that kind of damage you are justified. if a knife or gun is involved or reason to believe he or she intends to kill or maim you, its normally considered a deadly force situation. basically you have to judge each situation for yourself and then figure the cops and lawyers will be involved. just remember though that if you are in the hospital and maybe maimed or crippled for life, or dead .. you are a lot worse of then if you are in one piece and dealing with the law. my advice is do what you have to do to brake contact and get clear unharmed. if that means you have to cripple or kill some one.. do it! if it means kick em once in the groin or poke them in the eye and brake a finger or two and run.. do that.

 

[Dale]

Well, then, in a sense you've answered your own implicit question, Dale. You are not going to get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.

I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsely if someone tries to do open-ended damage to me—and why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron, and given that they are attacking you, while you had no intent to do them any harm, I believe you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat.

Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice. Would anyone really expect me, or anyone else, to peruse the ethical nicities of force modulation, in real time, under those circumstances? I want, and believe I deserve, to live; I have a wife, a child and other relatives who depend on me. The attacker who tries to harm me is attacking them as well. If my response results in severe damage to my attacker—and I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happen—can anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?

Hello Exile,
With respect I did not post a question but rather I posted a clarification of my position on the topic.

It seems you and I live very different lives, or perhaps are at very different stages of our lives, as I have had numerous punches thrown in my direction and in every case have acted in accord with my training. Thankfully my training allows for each response to be scaled in a manner to suit the individual circumstance. Had I acted in the way you describe, that is to presume every punch is thrown with lethal intent, I would be serving a very long time in one of our fine corrective facilities.

For example, some of the people who have meant me some degree of harm include a number of elderly or infirm people affected by medications, senile dementia, alcohol withdrawal, drug addictions, various states of psychoses, post traumatic stress syndrome or other disorders that found them in my care. I presume the majority of these individuals had family and friends who loved them and in many cases relied on them in various ways.

As a parent I am sure you can appreciate my decision to exercise "due discretion" and a scaled response to violence directed at me by the countless drug and alcohol affected youths, both male and female, while working at various nightclubs, pubs, and entertainment venues.

Though all of these assaults took place in the course of my employment in various jobs they should be considered no less self defense than an assault that takes place in a parking lot, as I am not employed as a professional fighter or punching bag!

In the few instances where I have been assaulted by individuals or groups outside of my employment I have acted in accord with the threat and am proud to have lived to tell the tale and learn the lessons.

Life is not black and white, interpersonal interactions, be they positive or negative are complex things and I know that the friends and relatives of the people with whom I have had altercations are thankful that it was myself and not someone who shares your combative ethos that was the target of their relatives misguided aggression. With that I can say I share the original sentiment echoed by Sanchin-J in their original post.

I am new to this forum so am unaware of your individual personalities and experiences however I encourage you to open your combative eyes and see the world for what it is. There are shades of grey in all things, this is not a black and white world with goodies and baddies. I am as aware and capable as anyone of the kill or be killed mentality, however such mindset is best reserved for the battlefield or life and death struggle, there needs to be appropriate levels of engagement for all combative encounters. That is if one intends to act within the bounds of the law.

To clarify, I am actually saying that kill or be killed type thinking does constitute self defense, however the original question posted by Sanchin-J was one of ethics not self defense. I myself teach scaled responses ranging from minimal intervention to lethal force where necessary, emphasis on the where necessary!
Even in war there are levels of engagement, decisions are made through intelligence gained.
I agree with your comment that "you are ethically justified in taking whatever measures seem to you necessary to eliminate the threat" and I advocate your right to defend your life by whatever means necessary, that is a right of all people. However I also raise the idea that threat assessment needs to be realistic and in combat, as in all things there are grey areas.



Dale

 

[MJS]

I have my issues with Jim Wagner. He just added plagiarism; the color codes he discusses are simply a take on the well known Cooper's Color Code. Even so -- he's presenting a decent model. One thing I like is that he's aimed it at civilians; you can't simply take a LE use of force model and apply it to civilians. Cops job is to take control of and arrest a person; a civilian's job is to get out of the self-defense situation alive, with minimal harm.

Agreed. I just posted it for a reference.

I'm personally sick of that saying. I'd rather avoid either

Agreed again. I've said many times that if you can talk your way out of something first, do it. If there is no time for that, or if that option fails, defending yourself is the only thing left.

-- and it IS possible to defend yourself within the law. And it's possible to learn enough about the legal system to keep your actions within the bounds of the law.

And thats why its important for the average person to know the laws. Talking to a LEO, lawyer, etc and asking serious questions is a good start.

With that in mind -- I do agree with the mindset you express. If I'm attacked -- I'm defending myself or those under my protection, with everything necessary to end the attack. Depending on the scenario, that may be running away and calling the cavalry, it might be simply evading or containing my drunken idiot brother -- or it may be using lethal force. I address the legal concerns by learning them and studying them, and incorporating them into my training, so that when I need to use them under pressure, I don't have to worry about figuring it out.

 

[exile]

There are cases and forums where these techniques are appropriate but civilian use is not among them if this is the only response taught.]

So basically a punch delivered by my friends drunken grandmother or 12 year old cousin might not be that great a threat, but a punch delivered by a 115kg steroid raging member of a 4 man group intent on doing me serious harm would be taken as a more serious attack.

This is what I was referring to as "reasonableness" and demonstrates the importance of being able to scale our responses.

OK, so here are two things you say which, to me, appear to be a bit at odds...

Hello Exile,
With respect I did not post a question but rather I posted a clarification of my position on the topic.

... and I was referring to what you were saying as a question, rather than the apparent contradiction it seemed to be, as per the two passages from your posts I've quoted, because taken together, they read as an implicit question: when is what level of force justified? In your first post, we have a blanket statement that appears to condemn high-intensity responses in civil contexts across the board. In the second, you make a major distinction between scenarios, one of which is going to be fairly minor and trivial and the others of which are life-threatening. My comment that you had answered your own question was a preface to what I would have thought was fairly obvious: in the second kind of scenario, extreme violent empty-handed responses are indeed justified by the circumstances.

[B[It seems you and I live very different lives, or perhaps are at very different stages of our lives,[/B] as I have had numerous punches thrown in my direction and in every case have acted in accord with my training.

Very likely. I'm 60 years old, lived much of my life in New York City and have a perspective on street violence which reflect both of those facts.

Thankfully my training allows for each response to be scaled in a manner to suit the individual circumstance. Had I acted in the way you describe, that is to presume every punch is thrown with lethal intent, I would be serving a very long time in one of our fine corrective facilities.

Since I clearly specified the circumstances which I regarded as evidence of lethal intent—street attacks, assaults by thugs or dangerous defectives in confined spaces and so on—I have to say I have no idea of where you got the impression that I was saying that every punch ever thrown required deadly force in response. Let's take a look at some of the cases you mention:

For example, some of the people who have meant me some degree of harm include a number of elderly or infirm people affected by medications, senile dementia, alcohol withdrawal, drug addictions, various states of psychoses, post traumatic stress syndrome or other disorders that found them in my care. I presume the majority of these individuals had family and friends who loved them and in many cases relied on them in various ways.

I have to say, I'm baffled by these comments. I itemize a specific set of dangerous scenarios involving street violence, and you then respond with a set of circumstances which have nothing to due with the scenarios I mention and insist that these people should not be subject to the kind of response I specifically identified as appropriate for the completely different situations I mentioned. I'm not sure how setting up this kind of straw man advances the discussion, which seems to me to center on whether or not training for extreme violent defensive responses is ever justified as defense. I gave a number of examples where I think a good case can be made. Your response that defense at level would be inappropriate for an elderly person suffering from senile dementia is true but irrelevant, since neither that situation, nor any of the others you mention, is covered by the range of cases I provided. And it is that range, not the ones you refer to, which is the target of almost all MA training, regardless of style.

As a parent I am sure you can appreciate my decision to exercise "due discretion" and a scaled response to violence directed at me by the countless drug and alcohol affected youths, both male and female, while working at various nightclubs, pubs, and entertainment venues.

As a parent with a family dependent on me to protect, I can tell you that if anyone, youth or not, affected by alcohol, drugs, or macho aggressiveness, presented me with a threat at the level of extreme danger that a hard-thrown punch at the head represents, I would see to it that they wound up on the ground, and stayed there long enough for there to be no further danger of attack from them. I am not talking about an attempted slap from some drunken customer; I'm talking about a clear intent to damage me via the standard swinging roundhouse, attempted headbutt, or any of the other habitual acts of violent assault initiation that your own Patrick McCarthy has done so much to document in street attack situations across different societies. If the elderly person whose case you seemed to think is relevant throws a punch at me, the deflection which is part of my response when the two-time felon loser does it will be more than enough to keep them from contacting me without doing them any harm; the difference is that if the street punk throws his version of the punch, the deflection is only the first step, and a hard elbow strike to his face, or a knifehand strike to his larynx, or some combination of those or similar moves, will be the last step. I train knifehand strike board breaks on three inch-thick board stacks, and when in my view my survival is at stake, I will use that same level of force on my attacker's throat. Period. In dealing with the kind of assailant I just identified, I believe I have no other rational choice.

Though all of these assaults took place in the course of my employment in various jobs they should be considered no less self defense than an assault that takes place in a parking lot, as I am not employed as a professional fighter or punching bag!

I find this somewhat oddly put. Again, it seems to me something of a straw man to be rebutting a claim (which no one has actually made!) that the kind of relatively harmless assaults you refer to wouldn't count as self-defense. Clearly, any time you stop an unprovoked assault on your person, that counts as legitimate self-defense; what is at issue is the level of danger. Not one person I know who trains for maximum effective street defense would say that you should respond to an obviously low level of physical hazard with maximum force, and furthermore, I don't know of a single street-effective combat system that gives you no options in handling a sub-lethal level of danger except to respond with lethal force yourself. Not karate, not the TKD I train in, not Hapkido, not jiujitsu... none of them give you an exclusive, maximum, level of response. What they do equip you to do is defend yourself in extremis—and if you train for that, you have no problem using a lower-grade version of the tech sequence simply by stopping before the point where you would direct a finishing strike to a soft-tissue target above the shoulders, or something equally effective in a survival-level violent encounter. The idea that unless you specifically train for lower-level response, you will execute a lethal technique sequence automatically without any choice because your training wires it into you is the stuff of MA fantasy, I think.

Life is not black and white, interpersonal interactions, be they positive or negative are complex things and I know that the friends and relatives of the people with whom I have had altercations are thankful that it was myself and not someone who shares your combative ethos that was the target of their relatives misguided aggression. With that I can say I share the original sentiment echoed by Sanchin-J in their original post.

Since, in spite of my explicit identification of deadly force situations, you are attributing to me an ethos—in all situations, act as though you were confronted with deadly force—which my own comments make clear is not mine, I think you need to read a bit more carefully before making such statements. In particular, consider again what I wrote to you in my first paragraph:

You are not going to get assaulted in a parking garage, watering hole, or apartment lobby by anyone's grandmother or your own 12 year old cousin. In those situations, you have every right to expect that the initiation of serious violence against you constitutes a deadly threat.... and respond accordingly.

Is it all that unclear here that I am identifying a set of circumstances in which exactly the kind of straw-men alternative scenarios you raise are not going to happen, and am excluding the old people and juveniles that you apparently think are relevant? I am talking about a particular kind of violent assault by a dangerous individual who is clearly intent on hurting you and has the capability of doing so, to a potentially deadly degree, if you do not defend yourself. The relatively few violent altercations I've been in in my adult life have been exactly of this kind. And there are plenty of people who have had the same kind of experience.

I am new to this forum so am unaware of your individual personalities and experiences however I encourage you to open your combative eyes and see the world for what it is.

I have, as I say, been seeing the world for what it is for more than six decades...

There are shades of grey in all things, this is not a black and white world with goodies and baddies. I am as aware and capable as anyone of the kill or be killed mentality, however such mindset is best reserved for the battlefield or life and death struggle, there needs to be appropriate levels of engagement for all combative encounters. That is if one intends to act within the bounds of the law.

... and one of the things I have seen in the world as it is is that people are severely crippled or killed in street attacks by remorseless attackers who are either attempting to rob them, or gratifying the kind of sadistic impulse we find in bullies of every kind. I've seen it happen on NYC streets, and on the strees of Columbus, Ohio. And no, there are things in which there are no shades of grey. An attempt on your life by someone well-equipped to take it has a very simple two-valued logic: you survive or you die. A serious attack on you, even without weapons, can get you killed, and therefore has to be treated as an attempt on your life. Equivocate in your own defense and you will very likely be fatally damaged or incapacitated, possibly permanently. If I have to defend myself against that kind of attack, then I will take my chances with the law, and trust my own judgment.

To clarify, I am actually saying that kill or be killed type thinking does constitute self defense, however the original question posted by Sanchin-J was one of ethics not self defense.

I find this a thoroughly false dichotomy. No system of ethics which does not recognize the primacy of survival in the face of unsought violence has the slightest claim on our consciences. And if the level of violence is, as you put it, 'kill or be killed', and thus self-defense, then if follows from what I just said that any ethical system which does not recognize the primacy of self-defense has any claim on our consciences. Your cases of less-than-deadly levels of attack are relevant here only to the extent that if someone responds with deadly force to a nonlethal level of threat, then there is a serious ethical issue that person's conduct raises, precisely because it is not clear that what they have done is confined to defense. And as I was very explicit about in the section of my post to you that I quoted, I was referring spcifically to lethal levels of threat—which the ordinary street attack must be presumed to be.

However I also raise the idea that threat assessment needs to be realistic and in combat, as in all things there are grey areas.

Again—I cannot imagine that anyone would take a physically aggressive action by an Alzheimer's patient, or an attempt to push you out of the way by a falling-down-drunk cousin at a family event which went sideways, to be combat; I take 'combat' to involve a serious level of assault. But once we actually get to that level, I do not believe things are at all grey. Someone who strikes at me in a way that makes it clear that they are willing, and able, to hurt me badly if they connect has, in my view, removed all greyness from the situation. Again, I am not saying that you are justified in damaging your attacker once he's clearly no longer a danger; but your first imperative has to be to ensure your own safety. And there are many situations of the kind I was referring to where, with the best will in the world, you have no choice but to damage your attacker severely enough to ensure that he is no longer capable of threatening you physically.

 

[Sukerkin]

Most cogently constructed and argued as ever, my friend.

Dale, the way that you illustrate that you too can string intelligent sentences together gves me hope that you won't paint yourself into a corner on this issue. Don't allow it to become an erudite pastiche of "'tis!" versus "'tisn't!".

It's an interesting topic and it has angles and depths that can reflect different concepts for different people dependant on their own circumstances and experience. Bring those to the fore along with the hypotheticals and watch the discourse grow .

 

[KenpoTex]

Exile, outstanding post...I particularly like this part:

No system of ethics which does not recognize the primacy of survival in the face of unsought violence has the slightest claim on our consciences.

 

[Dale]

Hello Exile,
It seems we have both misread the others intent on this topic. The subject of your comment :"so here are two things you say which, to me, appear to be a bit at odds..." is actually an example of the clarification I described in my previous post.
Though I can appreciate how you arrived at the conclusion you did I ask you to read the section quoted in your previous post again with the following emphasis added:

Dale: "There are cases and forums where these techniques are appropriate but civilian use is not among them if this is the only response taught."

This, at least to me, is a discussion on the scaled use of force, a point which has been consistent perhaps to the point of repetitive throughout my posts on this forum.

Now here is where I have misread your intention:

...I know that I have the capability to do major damage to an attacker who throws a punch at me. And I will exercise that capability remorsel[essl]y if someone tries to do open-ended damage to me—and why shouldn't I? People have been killed by single punches, either because of some structural weakness in their own skeletal or cardiovascular constitution, or because the punch resulted in an impact force to their head (being knocked into a hard-surface wall or floor, for example) sufficient to kill them. A punch can be as life-threatening as a baseball bat or tire iron...
Anyone who attacks me physically with intent to damage me is confronting me with a kill-or-be-killed choice...
If my response results in severe damage to my attacker—and I train to ensure that that is exactly what will happen—can anyone actually claim, plausibly, that there is some ethical imperative which trumps my right to preserve my own life?

Not knowing anything about you I have jumped to the conclusion that when you said these statements that you were of the opinion that all punches were to be considered lethal. I am glad to read that you in fact take circumstances including environment etc into account.

Now in consideration of your last post:

...
Very likely. I'm 60 years old, lived much of my life in New York City and have a perspective on street violence which reflect both of those facts.

Now this does reflect a different circumstance. The law will certainly view your response to violence and mine in a very different way given that I am half your age, with respect.

...Let's take a look at some of the cases you mention:

... Your response that defense at level would be inappropriate for an elderly person suffering from senile dementia is true but irrelevant, since neither that situation, nor any of the others you mention, is covered by the range of cases I provided. And it is that range, not the ones you refer to, which is the target of almost all MA training, regardless of style.

As a parent with a family dependent on me to protect, I can tell you that if anyone, youth or not, affected by alcohol, drugs, or macho aggressiveness, presented me with a threat at the level of extreme danger that a hard-thrown punch at the head represents, I would see to it that they wound up on the ground, and stayed there long enough for there to be no further danger of attack from them. I am not talking about an attempted slap from some drunken customer; I'm talking about a clear intent to damage me via the standard swinging roundhouse, attempted headbutt, or any of the other habitual acts of violent assault initiation that your own Patrick McCarthy has done so much to document in street attack situations across different societies. If the elderly person whose case you seemed to think is relevant throws a punch at me, the deflection which is part of my response when the two-time felon loser does it will be more than enough to keep them from contacting me without doing them any harm; the difference is that if the street punk throws his version of the punch, the deflection is only the first step, and a hard elbow strike to his face, or a knifehand strike to his larynx, or some combination of those or similar moves, will be the last step...
Again—I cannot imagine that anyone would take a physically aggressive action by an Alzheimer's patient, or an attempt to push you out of the way by a falling-down-drunk cousin at a family event which went sideways, to be combat; I take 'combat' to involve a serious level of assault. But once we actually get to that level, I do not believe things are at all grey. Someone who strikes at me in a way that makes it clear that they are willing, and able, to hurt me badly if they connect has, in my view, removed all greyness from the situation...

It seem that we are in agreement with regard to the ability and necessity to scale responses to varying circumstances. However the way you read my previous post appears full of assumptions that are unfortunately false. Something which I am not innocent in with regards to your posts, for which I apologize.
Many of the people suffering from the various disorders I listed (which was far wider than senile dementia) are younger than yourself. This is not intended as a stab at your age, but rather I mean to point out that at your age you sound very combatively able which these people most often are I can assure you. Many of them are veterans of wars including Vietnam and the first Gulf War. On more than one occasion we have had the local equivalent of the SWAT team in to deal with hostage type situations involving weapons, often improvised, of varying types.
Drug addiction and psychoses can and does affect people from all ages and walks of life and can lead to some extremely serious altercations, combined with the use of edged weapons this is no less serious than those situations you described.

With regards to working at pubs, clubs and entertainment venues the threat is no less serious. What did you think they were hitting me with if not round-swings or head-butts?... fluffy dice?
If you find yourself in the company of a bouncer or doorman ask them about their last Friday or Saturday night at work and you will hear a list of acts that exceeds swinging roundhouses or head-butts. Most nights see assaults from bikies, gangs of various types, weapon attacks and football players with too much drink, drugs or steroids pumping through their blood stream. In these cases the elbow to the face, chokeholds, throws, joint locks and dislocations, throat strikes etc are all commonly used defensive tactics, but all within reasonable bounds. With this it seems we are in agreement.

With respect to both of our intelligence the reason I highlighted those specific circumstances was to present the discussion with an alternate perspective on when and how serious violence occurs.
Clearly this perspective does not resonate with you as it is outside of your current reality or lifestyle, which I can see, however this may not be the case for other members of this forum.

... I don't know of a single street-effective combat system that gives you no options in handling a sub-lethal level of danger except to respond with lethal force yourself... none of them give you an exclusive, maximum, level of response. What they do equip you to do is defend yourself in extremis—and if you train for that, you have no problem using a lower-grade version of the tech sequence simply by stopping before the point where you would direct a finishing strike to a soft-tissue target above the shoulders, or something equally effective in a survival-level violent encounter...

I am extremely pleased to read that we see eye to eye on this matter. I presumed, based on your first post, that you were of the "reality-based-combative-urban-street-warrior" type mentality for which I again apologize. There are people in those type of systems I have observed teaching students to respond with various weapons including knives, and to use finishing techniques such as head stomps or neck breaks against attacks such as punches or grabs.
It seems in the situations you describe we both tend to respond similarly, however I do hope that there are people on this forum who benefit from the alternative perspective I have offered and who can see that the concept of Self Defense covers many areas.

As a side issue here in Australia we are seeing an increase in drink spiking, which often sees otherwise peaceful guys turn crazy violent, and "glassing" attacks. Both these can change the lives of an otherwise nice young person in seconds!



Dale

 

[still learning]

Hello, Self-Defense does not mean someone defend themselves with NON-violent moves.

Self-defense means using any means to survive any conflict. Soldiers in wars defend their base camp...means destory the enemy with what ever they have at hand....rockets,bombs,Jets,cannons,bullets,...etc. self-defense.

Kenpo and any martial arts...is about surviving most confrontations...many times meaning OFFENCE TACTICS! ..to defend oneself!

The best self-defense it VERBAL....! ...or a poke in the eye?

Aloha,

 

[Sanchin-J]

Just to clarify for Kenpotex,
I'm not an instructor, just a student in my chosen art. But my goals to one day instruct hinge upon having a proper mindset and personal definitions in place, which is why this conversation originally started hehe.

Thanks for the constructives however, there has been a good amount of diversity in this conversation and its very educating and somewhat entertaining to actually read through responses and try to step into the shoes of the poster.

 

[Patrick61]

We are all responsible for the level of force we use to respond to an assault or attack of any kind, regardless of our martial arts prowess. We can all be held accountable IAW the law. Fighting should be a last resort. If, however, there is a need to protect, then there is a use of force continium that must be exercised in my opinion. This of course requires that the person defending has the knowledge and skills to apply the required level of force.

As far as "overkill" in the Kenpo arts, it is really "overload" and insuring that the assialant is down and stays down. Anyone who is attacking someone with the intent to do physical harm deserves whatever they get in my opinion. Although the folks practicing are practicing on compliant partners and demonstrating some lethal techniques, this doesn't mean the same person will deliver lethal techniques in the street. The situation dictates what needs to be done and we have to hope that our spirits are compassionate in those instances where we can stop once the agressive force has been neutralized. In those siuations where the force is lethal in intention, there is no time to be nice.

In Kajukenbo, we learn to finish the fight.

Respectfully,

Sifu Pat

First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not meaning any disrespect to -any- of the Martial Arts out there.

Recently, I ran across a few people who were studying Kenpo up state from where I live. They constantly called what they were being taught "Self Defense" and I was somewhat concerned as to how they could perceive that particular art as a self defense art. I've been a student of Ninjutsu for over half my life and have taken Kenpo classes for a short time while in college and what we learned was how to brutalize and destroy an opponent with techniques that were meant to sincerely harm someone or kill them, it was -not- self defense in my opinion.

It made me think for a long while and ask myself some questions which I have personally resolved but would make for quite a discussion on these boards. The biggest of these questions is to ask, "At what point is the line drawn between self defense and simply assault?" Many martial arts teach things like breaks, submissions and even killing strikes, if someone uses these particular methods while defending themselves aren't they in fact becoming the aggressor and stepping over that line?

It really made me think when we were having our discussion and while I may have been a bit critical of their label of being in a Self Defense type class, I still feel that what they were being taught was far beyond Self Defense and was more or less aggressive combat training. I still wonder how some arts can claim to be teaching self defense when what they teach is brutal, aggressive and in some cases deadly. Believe me, I don't see the world through rose colored glasses, there are times when deadly force has to be met with deadly force, and while I understand that, it often raises the question of who actually defines what is or is not deadly force and when/if it should be used?

Anyhow, I'd love to hear from everyone on this, its actually quite intriguing when you think about it, and although I did point a finger at Kenpo, like I said, I don't mean disrespect by it and would like to hear what those who study kenpo have to say about it as well.