Do you need to destroy your opponent OUTSIDE the dojang?

[aaradia]

So your answer is killing a thug? Because you reject limited force? You have never been mugged. I am certain of it. And do not stretch the truth. I have been jumped twice in my adult life. I was able to quickly shove his hand away and was able to run to safety. The other time I had my ccw. He backed off. Yes, I could have shot him but at the Travon Martin case. The best advice is to run. And for the 47 year old library worker, fighting back can make things worse. Talking one's way out has better results.

How did the conversation go from sticking your fingers in someones eyes to blind them and get away to killing them? Where was killling mentioned by me? Yeah, please don't put words in my mouth as to what my answer was. Try discussing what is said, not straw man arguments.

How exactly am I stretching any truth? Yeah, please be specific if you are going to accuse me of something like that.

And Travon Martin has nothing to do with any scenario's talked about so far. Again, no one has mentioned neighborhood watch vigilantism anywhere here until you brought him up. Multiple straw men arguments going on here for sure.


Who rejected limited force when the situation requires it? Did you even bother reading my first post here? Where I discussed appropriate force for a situation? For example: If someone wants my wallet, I am going to hand them it if I think that will prevent any violence. I am also going to run away whenever possible and as soon as possible. I am also all for talking my way out of a situation whenever possible. In fact, I mentioned situational awareness, talking, force appropriate to the situation, and running away already. I guess you missed that. But sometimes, all that does not work, fighting then becomes the option.

What part of being grabbed in alone at night are you not understanding?

You really think once someone has grabbed you in a dark place at night that talking is going to do you any good? Seriously?

Of course, in certian situations fighting can make things worse. Again, no one has said otherwise. In others it could save you from having violence perpetrated on you. If you don't believe in fighting in principle or that it is never appropriate, why even bother studying MA's?

 

[arnisador]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Thinking you can use limited force on the street thug bent on causing you harm with the ability to do so is the white pajama fantasy.

Prepare to be tried by twelve rather than carried by six.

 

[Drasken]

I reject your reality and substitute my own. Thinking you can use limited force on the street thug bent on causing you harm with the ability to do so is the white pajama fantasy.

It depends. If someone is just drunk and aggressive there are techniques to incapacitate without serious harm. Heck I've done that several times. I don't even consider that a real fight. Just pin them until the bouncer comes and takes them away.

In a life or death situation, not many would argue with you using as much force as possible. But against someone not trying to kill you? You get jail time. And then you get to pay them lots of money for their injuries in the inevitable lawsuit. And you will lose.

I was always taught how to feel out the difference in a real threat or simple stupidity. And to react accordingly. When the cops show up you want to be able to say "I just did what i had to do." And be able to expect the police to say "Ok, we'll take it from here" rather than arrest you for excessive force. Then nasty words such as assault and attempted murder are usually discussed.
I worked with a guy that did 6 years in prison. His crime was putting 4 guys in the hospital. He was jumped by 6 people. The witness didn't see him get jumped. But he did see my coworker stomp a guy in the ribs after he was down. At that point there was no threat. He had time to get away and call police.
Excessive force charges. Self defense became assault.

 

[Cyriacus]

You dont need to do anything outside the dojang. You can just be a good little victim.

Optionally, you can gauge your level of force based on your own personal preferences and your view of the situation. I mean, if someone grabs your collar with both hands, and then they just yell at you, its probably fine. On the other hand, if they toss you down onto your back, you wouldnt be able to clap their ears before they did that anyway. Let alone being driven back into a wall to have your head beaten in.

 

[Rumy73]

Prepare to be tried by twelve rather than carried by six.

Ok, cowboy.

 

[Rumy73]

How did the conversation go from sticking your fingers in someones eyes to blind them and get away to killing them? Where was killling mentioned by me? Yeah, please don't put words in my mouth as to what my answer was. Try discussing what is said, not straw man arguments.

How exactly am I stretching any truth? Yeah, please be specific if you are going to accuse me of something like that.

And Travon Martin has nothing to do with any scenario's talked about so far. Again, no one has mentioned neighborhood watch vigilantism anywhere here until you brought him up. Multiple straw men arguments going on here for sure.


Who rejected limited force when the situation requires it? Did you even bother reading my first post here? Where I discussed appropriate force for a situation? For example: If someone wants my wallet, I am going to hand them it if I think that will prevent any violence. I am also going to run away whenever possible and as soon as possible. I am also all for talking my way out of a situation whenever possible. In fact, I mentioned situational awareness, talking, force appropriate to the situation, and running away already. I guess you missed that. But sometimes, all that does not work, fighting then becomes the option.

What part of being grabbed in alone at night are you not understanding?

You really think once someone has grabbed you in a dark place at night that talking is going to do you any good? Seriously?

Of course, in certian situations fighting can make things worse. Again, no one has said otherwise. In others it could save you from having violence perpetrated on you. If you don't believe in fighting in principle or that it is never appropriate, why even bother studying MA's?

I was talking to Earl.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Again -- can you articulate or explain the reason you had to do such serious bodily harm? If so -- you're more than likely OK. .)

>>What I meant to describe in my first scenario was being grabbed for no reason, out of the blue, with no warning alone at night in a parking lot<<< Not to difficult in this scenario "Officer, I was alone, at night ina a parking lot and someone grabbed me without warning. I was in fear of my life. " Case closed.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Originally Posted by Earl Weiss I reject your reality and substitute my own. Thinking you can use limited force on the street thug bent on causing you harm with the ability to do so is the white pajama fantasy.

It depends. If someone is just drunk and aggressive there are techniques to incapacitate without serious harm. Heck I've done that several times. I don't even consider that a real fight. Just pin them until the bouncer comes and takes them away.

.

Read my intro again as well as the refined post about alone at night in aparking lot grabbed for no rerason, as well as street thug bent on causing harm with the ability to do so. I will err on the side of caution for my own safety in the parking lot scenario meaning that I am not going to give the attacker a breathalyzer test to determine his level of inebriation or take very long measuring his abilities.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I worked with a guy that did 6 years in prison. His crime was putting 4 guys in the hospital. He was jumped by 6 people. The witness didn't see him get jumped. But he did see my coworker stomp a guy in the ribs after he was down. At that point there was no threat. He had time to get away and call police.
Excessive force charges. Self defense became assault.

He must have had Mike Tyson's lawyer.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Self defense legalities will center around several points. First, what are the circumstances surrounding the battery? Is this your drunk uncle Bob at the family BBQ, or is it a sudden, vicious attack in a dark parking lot? What are the subject/victim factors? Is the victim a 90lbs female vs. a 250lbs ex-felon? Does the victim have any documented experience i.e. martial arts training, Defensive Tactics training etc. No, I'm not talking about a black belt having their 'hands registered with the FBI' and that sort of nonsense, rather certified courses they've attended or instruct at. This 'could' be a factor if it goes to court. What is the criminal history of the attacker (if any). This 'could' also be a factor in court. Two bottom lines here: One is that there are many considerations that have to be taken into consideration, often in a very short amount of time. Were you actions reasonable? Would someone in your shoes have reacted the same way? And can you articulate well enough to explain your actions. Secondly, MINIMUM force may not necessarily be MINIMAL force. Is it possible that you may have to use lethal force (force that is likely to cause great bodily harm and/or death) from something as simple as a grab? Yes. Are you prepared if this is the case? Only you can answer that question.

 

[Drasken]

He must have had Mike Tyson's lawyer.

Breaking 2 ribs when the guy was down and he had every opportunity to get away. No, he could have had the best lawyer in the world and may still have served time. There is a line where self defense becomes assault. Be careful not to cross it.

 

[Drasken]

Originally Posted by Earl Weiss I reject your reality and substitute my own. Thinking you can use limited force on the street thug bent on causing you harm with the ability to do so is the white pajama fantasy.Read my intro again as well as the refined post about alone at night in aparking lot grabbed for no rerason, as well as street thug bent on causing harm with the ability to do so. I will err on the side of caution for my own safety in the parking lot scenario meaning that I am not going to give the attacker a breathalyzer test to determine his level of inebriation or take very long measuring his abilities.

And as I said, in that situation sure force is ok. But I haven't seen a mugger come up and grab anyone's collar. It is more likely to happen in a fight, not a surprise assault in a dark parking lot. So I also responded that force is not always needed in all situations. Murderer or rapist gets seriously injured, nobody feels too sorry for him. But if they aren't a mugger, murderer or rapist.....

 

[Kong Soo Do]

A while back we had a guy here that claimed a man grabbed his elbow in a 'hostile manner'. He never would elaborate on what constituted a 'hostile manner'. Be that as it may, he claimed to have broke the guys wrist then punched him in the throat hard enough to knock him down and then he attempted to kick him in the head while he was still on the ground. Apparently the guy (the one on the ground) had a girlfriend that jumped in between them to prevent the guy on the ground from getting kicked in the head. He never claimed to be in fear of his life and apparently the guy on the ground wasn't trying to get back up. It was a 'just because' sort of kick in the head. Point is that some folks are simply going to freak out and over-react. That or make up the whole story. Juries still out on that one.

 

[Earl Weiss]

Breaking 2 ribs when the guy was down and he had every opportunity to get away. No, he could have had the best lawyer in the world and may still have served time. There is a line where self defense becomes assault. Be careful not to cross it.

Yep, He should have helped the guy up, dusted him off and perhaps get attacked again.

 

[dancingalone]

But I haven't seen a mugger come up and grab anyone's collar. It is more likely to happen in a fight, not a surprise assault in a dark parking lot.

I agree, it definitely happens in fights.

Getting one's collar or lapels grabbed can happen in the course of a fight. One of my students, a policeman, was apprehending someone when the offender decided to put up a fight after all. After dodging a few swings, my student closed in and during the altercation he was able to convert a momentary clutch of his jacket into an jacket-assisted arm bar to put the man on the ground. This is a technique we practice in class almost verbatim, though most would consider it archaic and useless for modern times. I for one think a lot of the traditional methods/techniques still have relevance if we take them time to understand them in their original context with a view for current application as well.

 

[Drasken]

Yep, He should have helped the guy up, dusted him off and perhaps get attacked again.

No, but he could have left. He could have gone back inside the bar and called the police. But in stead he let his anger get in the way and stomped a guy who was already out of the fight. He posed no threat. Meaning it was no longer self defense, but a clear case of assault.
Honestly, I agree that not using any force in self defense defeats the purpose most times. But it seems that you are advocating complete destruction of an opponent. There is generally no need for that. And as a man who HAS been jumped. And has had a weapon pulled on me, I can tell you that completely destroying your opponent is not always necessary or even wise. In fact it will usually get you in more trouble than giving up your wallet and hoping the mugger let's you go.

I seriously think you should reconsider your stance on use of force. Yes there is a time to destroy an opponent. But thankfully those times are rare. And I hope that none of us ever face the situation where it is necessary.
But more often, there is no need for giving it everything you have. Or causing serious injury.

 

[RTKDCMB]

In other words - Better to be on trial than on a slab.

 

[K-man]

I think this thread has raised some interesting points. The OP was a question regarding a particular response to a particular attack. An unscripted attack is a 'variable', not an 'absolute', so I would never suggest anyone practise or even consider using one particular defense for one particular attack. Of course, even if the attack was exactly as you have practised, is your response going to be the same in an adrenalin dump situation? Even more, will you actually know what you are doing? I hear many times, "This guy attacked me and the first thing I knew he was lying on the ground. I don't know what happened." So if someone grabbed my collar, I have absolutey no idea what I will do. My reaction will be based on relative body positioning, what I am holding, like keys, how tall my attacker might be, etc.

The next issue is, what do you need to do to protect yourself? Once again, a variable. For most people in the OP scenario, you can utilise most options until the attacker is no longer a threat. For a 47 yo woman like aaradia, alone in a carpark at night, there are no limits. She still can't keep attacking once the threat is over but a woman vs a male attacker has a pretty good legal defence. I lean more towards Earl Weiss' position. "Thinking you can use limited force on the street thug bent on causing you harm with the ability to do so is the white pajama fantasy." Martial Art training comes in two forms ... sport and reality based. There may be a slight overlap but I believe it is pretty much black and white. If you train RBSD you will react automatically and violently and someone is going to get hurt. That is why we try to avoid potentially bad situations. If you have trained regularly to incapacitate an attacker there is a fair chance that will be the outcome on the street. The consideration of six vs twelve will never enter your head. You will do what you have trained to do. If you overstep you have to deal with the consequences. If it can be shown you have intentionally overstepped you may well go to jail.

If you have trained for sport, I'm not sure how you will respond because most sport based styles train kumite from outside range, scoring points, especially TKD. (MMA, BJJ, KM etc being the exceptions.) In a sporting situation, except at the top levels of cage fighting, you are not trying to really damage your opponent. Even then, it is a controlled environment and there is a referee to adjudicate. You will do what you can do and the same end point applies. If your attacker is no longer a threat, that's the end point.

So, back to the OP ... "Do you need to destroy your opponent OUTSIDE the dojang?"

Simple answer (my favourite ), 'It depends'. It may not be necessary, but destruction may be the outcome and then there are consequences. :asian:

 

[Earl Weiss]

. But in stead he let his anger get in the way and stomped a guy who was already out of the fight. He posed no threat. Meaning it was no longer self defense, but a clear case of assault.
.

That is where the court system ignored reality (If the scenario is accurately described) . Making that determination in the heat of battle is a crapshoot. Was the attacker really out of it? Was he playing possum waiting for an opportunity to pull a weapon and ambush the guy.

 

[Manny]

Th first thing I will do is to try to take off the collar grab or choke using waht ever is necesary, maybe direct punch to the face or maybe an arm bar even a groin kick or maybe a finger jab to the eyes.

The thing is I don't care if I can scratch the cornea for example to a guy who wants to hurt me, or even leave him blind temporarily, I just take off me the collar grab and run like hell.

manny