Is being a cop self defense

[Phobius]

It is more dangerous to loose to someone on the street.

Tuna fishing is more dangerous again.

Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.

As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)

 

[Tgace]

Equating industrial accidents to death by interpersonal violence is fallacious.

 

[Steve]

Are you being purposefully obstinate, to kill discussion in this thread?

I think everyone's being a little obstinate. The genesis for this thread was comments made by ballen about how real self defense is taking down a pcp crazed drug addict while walking the mean streets of Baltimore. I think that's ridiculous, and the average joe has as much of a chance of being in that situation as stepping into the Octagon.

I'll try a different tack here to see if I can get the point across. First, just more as a disclaimer. Cops have a dangerous job, as do bouncers and anyone else who puts themselves into harms' way professionally. This isn't intended to be in any way a negative thread about LEO. It's intended to highlight a double standard that exists.

The question I continue to have is pretty well illustrated in the exchange below:

By the way from my experience police tend to have terrible deescalation skills. My belief is because they can tazer people.

Police where I live do not have the ability to tazer people. Even using any weapon or tool could lead to a hearing in order to prove there was proper cause.

Do I believe the police where I live have good deescalation skills? Yes, even seen it myself. Not all cops but a lot of situations I have witnessed at least. Perhaps they do because deescalation is their goal and they had to have gained quite a bit experience in it.

A police is not different to any other, it is just that they are in a scenario where they can train and improve in what they do, and to many what they do is handle harmful and violent situations in order to live another day as well as making the world around them a bit safer.

Drop Bear remarks that the cops he has experienced are terrible at de-escalation, and his belief is because they don't have to de-escalate. They have tasers, which effectively de-escalate for them. This is along the same lines I proposed in the OP. A cop who has a gun, a radio, a vest, maybe a trained German Shephard, a taser, or any of the other tools that a cop typically has available, does not act in any way like someone who doesn't have those things.

Phobius responded that where he's from, they don't have tasers. AND, so they have better de-escalation technique than those who rely on different tools.

Is the point that cops are bad at de-escalation? No, but it illustrates that cops function within a very specific reality. It's different from being an MMA fighter, but it's ALSO different from being other than a cop.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a presumption that learning combat skills in an MMA school is not self defense but arresting drug addicts is. I think both are aspects of self defense AND both can lead to some pretty alarming biases and misconceptions about what the average joe is going to encounter.

As an analogy, I have a well established bias against people who drive Volvos. If anyone here drives a Volvo, let me just first say that you are surely an exception to the following rule. Volvo drivers are reckless, because they believe they can be. That's my theory. I've always driven small cars and was a long time driver of aircooled VWs. I've had several bugs, a bus and a Karmann Ghia over the years. These are not safe cars. But I was and am a very safe driver. I developed skills that were critical to my survival, because people (Volvo drivers) were oblivious. I can't stop the Volvo driver from tailgating me, but I can do things to mitigate the danger.

In the same way, cops are a product of their environment. As I've said repeatedly, there is a lot of overlap, but cops develop bad habits that are a direct result of a need to do a job that isn't self defense and the tools that they have available which aren't typically available to non-cops.

 

[Steve]

Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.

As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)

Take a look on the internet and you'll find that there are a LOT of statistics kept on assault and homicide.

Truly, if there are a bunch of fights where people aren't harmed, that just further illustrates the idea that people who sell self defense training are peddling an impression of safety over any actual guarantee of safety.

If you want to know what stats AREN'T available, it's anything demonstrating that martial arts or any physical self defense training ACTUALLY makes a person less likely to be a victim of assault or homocide.

There have been other programs that have focused on non-physical aspects of self defense that have been demonstrated to be effective, but those were largely dismissed by the collective here.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think everyone's being a little obstinate. The genesis for this thread was comments made by ballen about how real self defense is taking down a pcp crazed drug addict while walking the mean streets of Baltimore. I think that's ridiculous, and the average joe has as much of a chance of being in that situation as stepping into the Octagon.

I'll try a different tack here to see if I can get the point across. First, just more as a disclaimer. Cops have a dangerous job, as do bouncers and anyone else who puts themselves into harms' way professionally. This isn't intended to be in any way a negative thread about LEO. It's intended to highlight a double standard that exists.

The question I continue to have is pretty well illustrated in the exchange below:





Drop Bear remarks that the cops he has experienced are terrible at de-escalation, and his belief is because they don't have to de-escalate. They have tasers, which effectively de-escalate for them. This is along the same lines I proposed in the OP. A cop who has a gun, a radio, a vest, maybe a trained German Shephard, a taser, or any of the other tools that a cop typically has available, does not act in any way like someone who doesn't have those things.

Phobius responded that where he's from, they don't have tasers. AND, so they have better de-escalation technique than those who rely on different tools.

Is the point that cops are bad at de-escalation? No, but it illustrates that cops function within a very specific reality. It's different from being an MMA fighter, but it's ALSO different from being other than a cop.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a presumption that learning combat skills in an MMA school is not self defense but arresting drug addicts is. I think both are aspects of self defense AND both can lead to some pretty alarming biases and misconceptions about what the average joe is going to encounter.

As an analogy, I have a well established bias against people who drive Volvos. If anyone here drives a Volvo, let me just first say that you are surely an exception to the following rule. Volvo drivers are reckless, because they believe they can be. That's my theory. I've always driven small cars and was a long time driver of aircooled VWs. I've had several bugs, a bus and a Karmann Ghia over the years. These are not safe cars. But I was and am a very safe driver. I developed skills that were critical to my survival, because people (Volvo drivers) were oblivious. I can't stop the Volvo driver from tailgating me, but I can do things to mitigate the danger.

In the same way, cops are a product of their environment. As I've said repeatedly, there is a lot of overlap, but cops develop bad habits that are a direct result of a need to do a job that isn't self defense and the tools that they have available which aren't typically available to non-cops.

Who are you and what have you done with our Steve?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Take a look on the internet and you'll find that there are a LOT of statistics kept on assault and homicide.

Truly, if there are a bunch of fights where people aren't harmed, that just further illustrates the idea that people who sell self defense training are peddling an impression of safety over any actual guarantee of safety.

If you want to know what stats AREN'T available, it's anything demonstrating that martial arts or any physical self defense training ACTUALLY makes a person less likely to be a victim of assault or homocide.

There have been other programs that have focused on non-physical aspects of self defense that have been demonstrated to be effective, but those were largely dismissed by the collective here.

I didn't see much dismissal of that. I just saw people take it as a given that one aspects are important, then move on to discuss the importance and validity of physical training.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

If we can't agree that getting your *** kicked by a guy in a ring with a ref has a significant difference from being attacked by some stranger with unknown intent on the street... than I don't know how this conversation can continue.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Significant difference in the potential outcomes if you fail to effectively defend yourself in one situation versus the other? Absolutely!

Significant difference in the attributes, techniques, and tactics necessary to effectively defend yourself against a ring opponent versus necessary to defend against a street attacker? Maybe, maybe not - depending on the street situation and your normal ring tactics.

 

[Steve]

I didn't see much dismissal of that. I just saw people take it as a given that one aspects are important, then move on to discuss the importance and validity of physical training.

I'm sorry for the confusion. I have in mind another thread in which someone shared the findings of a training program which was specifically addressing the high incidence of sexual assault on college campuses in Canada.

They did some research, determined the criteria by which they would measure success, developed a training program and reported their results.

What they determined is that the key to reducing the incidence of sexual assaults, and of those assaulted, reducing the rate of successful assaults, had mostly to do with non-physical training. While there was a physical component, it was minimal. And yet, the program was a demonstrable success.

There were some very interesting things going on with this program. First, I think it's remarkable that they didn't fall into the common trap of trying to prevent homicide. Why? I think it's because homicide is exceedingly unlikely. It's not the actual training need. It's a distractor from the real need.

Second, they didn't fall into the trap of trying to create an engine of war. They focused on those things that would actually reduce a woman's risk of being assaulted on the campus. Things like esteem, making good choices, avoiding excessive alcohol or drugs, not taking drinks from people you don't know, not going to parties or bars alone. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Third, they actually did their homework, and applied some critical thought to identifying the actual training need they were attempting to address, along with concrete metrics for determining whether or not the training program was having a positive affect.

If I can find the thread, I'll post a link.

 

[Steve]

Significant difference in the potential outcomes if you fail to effectively defend yourself in one situation versus the other? Absolutely!

Significant difference in the attributes, techniques, and tactics necessary to effectively defend yourself against a ring opponent versus necessary to defend against a street attacker? Maybe, maybe not - depending on the street situation and your normal ring tactics.

Potential outcomes even? I don't know... odds are the outcome is going to be the same. Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it. Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies.

I'd also suggest that it's FAR more likely that a cop will be in a life or death encounter than a non-cop. Is that unreasonable? It's a kind of behavioral confirmation, I believe.

I'm pretty leery of using words like possible or potential. Is it possible? Sure. Almost anything is possible. In a world of random events, it's possible. It's also possible that an MMA fighter will bring a shiv into the cage, tucked into his shorts. Is that likely? No. It's ridiculous, and to build a self defense strategy around it would be pretty wasteful. That's about as unlikely as me ever being in a life or death struggle with an armed, PCP crazed super junkie who's hell bent on killing me.

It's about determining what risks are likely and what specific goals you have for your training. It's also about using commonly understand, objective measures.

 

[Buka]

Who are you and what have you done with our Steve?

Yes, what have you done with our Steve? Where he be?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Potential outcomes even? I don't know... odds are the outcome is going to be the same. Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it. Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies.

The average outcome might be about the same. However I think a self-defense encounter has a wider spread of potential outcomes.

Losing in a self-defense encounter might result in no more than a bloody nose and some bruises. It might result in being raped. It might result in being curb-stomped and requiring facial surgery. it might result in brain damage. It might result in being killed.

Getting killed or permanently maimed is statistically unlikely even in a street assault, but the potential is there, it's more likely than in an MMA match, and it's significant enough to take seriously. Even a 0.5% chance of that sort of outcome is enough for me to take it into consideration.*

*(Taking it into consideration doesn't mean I think every fight has to be a kill-or-be-killed excuse for destroying an assailant. It means I prefer to play it safe both in avoiding potential fights and in handling them once they've started. Sometimes in the cage it may be a worthwhile gamble to try a high-risk high-reward technique. On the street the potential losses are higher and so I would avoid those kinds of gambles.)

 

[Steve]

The average outcome might be about the same. However I think a self-defense encounter has a wider spread of potential outcomes.

Losing in a self-defense encounter might result in no more than a bloody nose and some bruises. It might result in being raped. It might result in being curb-stomped and requiring facial surgery. it might result in brain damage. It might result in being killed.

Getting killed or permanently maimed is statistically unlikely even in a street assault, but the potential is there, it's more likely than in an MMA match, and it's significant enough to take seriously. Even a 0.5% chance of that sort of outcome is enough for me to take it into consideration.*

*(Taking it into consideration doesn't mean I think every fight has to be a kill-or-be-killed excuse for destroying an assailant. It means I prefer to play it safe both in avoiding potential fights and in handling them once they've started. Sometimes in the cage it may be a worthwhile gamble to try a high-risk high-reward technique. On the street the potential losses are higher and so I would avoid those kinds of gambles.)

Sure if we are looking at the entire universe of possible outcomes for any physical altercation. But if you're opening it up to such a wide array of scenarios, most of which have nothing to do with any other, why not also include combat sports? I mean, at this point, given the lack of identifiable parameters, isn't the choice to distinguish between any physical altercation kind of arbitrary?

Don't get me wrong. Take seriously whatever you'd like. But two things to consider. First, you say .5%... is that a real standard you have? What about something that is .05% likely (or even .005%)? Because, we don't know what the actual odds are. Second, and this is a big one for me, what if attention on that .5% chance of something actually distracts you from addressing something that is 5% likely, 25% likely or more? In the example of the training program put together in Canada to address sexual assault, some in that thread suggested that the training would be more effective if there was more physical self defense training in it. What if that isn't the case?

And please don't misunderstand. I mean it when I say that if it's serious to you, then it's serious. Train what makes sense for you. But, what makes sense? How much time should be spent preparing for something that is exceedingly unlikely to occur?

If I'm interested in being safer, how much time should I spend on my defense against someone who is on PCP? How would I even go about doing that? And is that really where I'm going to see a return? Am I actually safer at all?

Edit: Just to return to my aircooled VW analogy (because I do like those old cars). I drove in a way that made me safe. But there's no way I can predict when someone will drive across three lanes of traffic on the freeway, and collide with me. My brother died in a car accident like this almost one year ago. He was driven under the trailer of a semi and killed. No amount of technique and not even driving a Volvo would have saved him. It was very sad. Still is. I miss him very much. But to the point, there are things we can do to make ourselves safer, and the rest we just have to accept as risk.

You say .5% chance is still worth it to you. Great. That's up to you. But there's a point where you just accept that life is risky. Is it POSSIBLE that I'll be attacked? Yes. Sure. It's possible. Is it probable? No. It is, in fact, exceedingly unlikely. And I can do things to improve my chances of not being assaulted, most of which do not involve training martial arts. And even those benefits of martial arts training are more about being physically fit and confident.

Also, more to the point of this thread, the decision about which situations to try and improve is often arbitrary. It's often whatever you're being sold. Training to defend against a drug crazed junkie isn't the same as defending against a rapist or a mugger or a trained Mixed Martial Artist who's in between you and a title shot. Improving your safety while attending college is different than at work in an office building, which is different from being the night clerk at a 7-Eleven. So, when I hear these judgments about the usefulness of one paradigm over another, it seems pretty darned shallow to me.

 

[drop bear]

Are you being purposefully obstinate, to kill discussion in this thread?

Lolcakes.

Think about all the rationalisations you have to make to support your point.

So this guy on the street has to engage in violence. Has to be pretty good at it. Has to do it when the cop has no back up. The cop can't access his gun, tazer, baton. The cop has no chance to escape. The guy wants to kill the cop rather than escape arrest.

Have I missed any conditions to make your theory work?

Because if we are discussing risk. All of these conditions minimise that risk. A police office actually engaging in self defence is about as likley as me engaging in self defence.

This is why your average cop is not training his guts out for a life or death fight.

 

[drop bear]

Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.

As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)

Tuna fishing vs police work.

Tuna fishing has the most risk so therefore it is more like self defence.

 

[drop bear]

Equating industrial accidents to death by interpersonal violence is fallacious.

Why? The defining factor was risk. If we say. OK risk is not a factor. Then we can compare similarly of interpersonal violence.

So far risk is another convenient shifting goal post. We use it when we want and discount it when we want.

 

[Tgace]

Fallacious. Any definition of self-defense would imply it means defense against interpersonal violence...not industrial accidents. That's Workplace Safety.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

Tuna fishing vs police work.

Tuna fishing has the most risk so therefore it is more like self defence.

Now that's just silly.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

Potential outcomes even? I don't know... odds are the outcome is going to be the same. Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it. Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies.

I'd also suggest that it's FAR more likely that a cop will be in a life or death encounter than a non-cop. Is that unreasonable? It's a kind of behavioral confirmation, I believe.

I'm pretty leery of using words like possible or potential. Is it possible? Sure. Almost anything is possible. In a world of random events, it's possible. It's also possible that an MMA fighter will bring a shiv into the cage, tucked into his shorts. Is that likely? No. It's ridiculous, and to build a self defense strategy around it would be pretty wasteful. That's about as unlikely as me ever being in a life or death struggle with an armed, PCP crazed super junkie who's hell bent on killing me.

It's about determining what risks are likely and what specific goals you have for your training. It's also about using commonly understand, objective measures.

That was going to be my next point. If we say worst case scenario.

 

[drop bear]

Now that's just silly.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Correct because risk is not really a factor.

Oh wait now it is.

Now it isn't.

Pick one.

 

[Tgace]

Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.

What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.

Sport fighting with all sorts of rules and controls is still fighting. But it's not self-defense.

Someone outside of any controls/rules where a reasonable person believes their life or serious physical injury is in the offing is in a self-defense situation.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk