Self Defense

LawDog

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
52
Location
Massachusetts, USA
First and most important the following is my own point of view on this subject and not an attack on any system or person.
There are many martial arts systems that teach a self defense type of a system and to me there is nothing wrong with this.
I tend to look at "Self Defense" as a negitive. One often hears about a fighter who defended himself well during a fight. To me this means that the fighter was beaten badly, he might have held out but, most of important, was not in control of the situation.
The same holds true with military units. During a battle many units have been known to have defended themselves very well. To me this means that they did not or could not control of the situation very well.
I believe that a good "defense" is a very strong offense. One should take control of any situation and not let your opponent control it. This does not mean that you will always win but it is a needed step on a path to a win or surviving. In many cases this can depend on your ability to take control of the situation.

On multiple attacks, if you sit back and defend they will not have any offensive pressure but on them so now they can work together as an offensive multi front.
This is a mind set I know but it is a students training that will develop a "defensive" or "offensive" mind set.
State of mind = your actions.
:boxing:
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hi,

I've said this before, but it's pertinent to this thread, so here it is again.

I'm personally not fond of the term "self DEFENCE". The implication is that there is an attack that needs to be defended against, so the mindset is always geared towards waiting for that attack before anything can be done. For me, the better term to use is Self Protection.

The Self Protection concept is far more inclusive of everything that may be considered something that keeps you safe. This includes, but is not limited to, offensive actions, pre-empting a violent assault, evasive actions to escape a situation, awareness to avoid the situation in the first place (which is everything from recognising body postures, body language, environmental awareness, awareness of potential weapons or allies of an opponent,awareness of common styles of attack in your environment [defences against classical Japanese sword attacks are great and teach a lot, but you will rarely come up against it in the street], all the way through to being aware of your intuition, following your "gut" to not go to a particular place), methods of non-violent restraint and removal, as overt violence is not always needed and can simply open you to possible legal issues, protecting others, safe driving practices to help limit your vulnerability to carjacking and road rage, and good health and diet knowledge to protect and keep you safe from disease and injury.

The above is a small list, but shows how Self Protection covers more ground than the limits of Self Defence. Of course, self defence concepts, techniques, tactics, strategies are all important, but they form only a part of a complete approach.

Just my thoughts.
 

jamz

Orange Belt
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
95
Reaction score
3
Location
Portland Maine
"Self defense" is more of a marketing and legal term nowadays, and is used much less often in the way you mean. It's a very fine line between having to apply self defense, almost by definition in a situation in which you have been ambushed, or are not in complete control, and having to "do what is necessary to stop the fight" which may very well go above and beyond what that term might legally mean.

Mindset indeed, in my tiny experience there are very few (though there are indeed a few) moves in my system that kind of assume an attach by one or more is going to happen, and they take initiative rather than react to a punch, kick or grapple, but of course you have to have the correct state of mind not to wait to be hit or ambushed.

Possibly training for initiative is less savory for the average person. Kind of reminds me of a story in which an instructor was making students go through a receiving line, and one of the other students was going to try to stab him. In the aftermath, the instructor had asked him why he did not run? cancel the line? use onf of the danged swords that was hanging on the wall nearby? None of them had the right mindset, and that's a (to me) critical but hard thing to teach. Probably easy to get sued, too. :(
 

stickarts

Senior Master
MT Mentor
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
3,902
Reaction score
60
Location
middletown, CT USA
When we use the term self defense we mean that you don't go out of your way to initiate a fight. It is made clear in class that no one has the right to lay a hand on you or threaten you and we have every right to take physical action if the situation cannot be resolved by peaceful means. I see nothing wrong with the term, it's more how you explain it and how you train.
Good points made and good thread.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,632
Reaction score
4,439
Location
Michigan
I think the word 'defense' is too insubstantial, which leads to mis-perceptions about what 'defense' is and is not. On a football team, there is an 'offense' and a 'defense', but in chess and war, the same team performs both offensive and defensive moves. In driving, 'offensive driving' would be considered a bad thing, whilst 'defensive driving' is suggested for all parties.

I believe the term 'Self Defense' refers only to the fact that the person defending themselves is not the perpetrator but the target of that person. I do not believe it refers to the manner in which they defend themselves.

If a martial artist was truly locked into the concept of defensive moves being the only ones available as he or she was being attacked, then they could presumably only throw blocks and not kicks or punches. I am not aware of that being the case. They would only perform them in reaction to an actual kick or punch, and not as soon as they reasonably believed they were about to be attacked. They would stand passively and await each blow, as opposed to attacking with the intent of ending the engagement quickly and decisively. Again, to the best of my knowledge, they are not taught that.

A person can clearly engage in self-defense by being the aggressor if there is sufficient reason to do so, from throwing the first punch to committing great violence against the perpetrator; from using weapons to using deadly force.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of self-defense is that the person engaging in it stops when the threat is clearly ended. Another is that generally in the USA, one may not engage in the use of deadly force unless the situation legally permits it (the 'reasonable man' test in some states).

Self-defense to me, then, is not so much about what is done but about the purpose behind it. I would use the same attacks if I were initiating a fight as I would if I were engaging in self-defense. The difference would be not in my methods but in my intent. The words that are used to describe this are not relevant.
 

Xinglu

Black Belt
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
647
Reaction score
20
Location
California
I look at it like this, in football you have differing kinds of defenses, some teams are heavy on the blitz, attacking the offense aggressively from all positions keeping the offense off balance. Other teams sit back and force teams to take the short game in attempts to force turnovers, sometimes they take the short game away and attempt to make the other team beat them long, forcing turnovers and sacks.

The team that blitzes heavily is going to get caught with screens and short slants/outs against a team that likes to run those. This is why defenses need to adapt to handle each offense they are opposing.

This is true in a fight. Sometimes it is best to attack and take the offense away from them, sometimes it is not. A big part of "SD" or "self protection" is self control. If you can control yourself then you can recognize situations an act appropriately, if you can act appropriately the you can control situations and therefore your opponent(s).

For example - if a verbal confrontation an all out assault is likely inappropriate, but for arguments sake lets say you go on the verbal offensive - that in most cases is a good way to end up in a physical altercation. This doesn't mean you have to cow-tow or submit, but it is not always appropriate.
 
Last edited:

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
1,056
As others have said, the term "self-defense" is defined and used with different ideas around it. To some it means self-protection and includes ALL areas of defending your personal safety. To others it is defined as a legal term and encompasses using offensive techniques to provide in the defense of the self. Then there are some that ONLY use defensive techniques to protect themself while an opponent is attacking them.

It all comes down to mindset and how YOU look at your safety and what you do to prepare for it.
 

Milt G.

Purple Belt
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
340
Reaction score
7
Location
Hillsboro, OR.
First and most important the following is my own point of view on this subject and not an attack on any system or person.
There are many martial arts systems that teach a self defense type of a system and to me there is nothing wrong with this.
I tend to look at "Self Defense" as a negitive. One often hears about a fighter who defended himself well during a fight. To me this means that the fighter was beaten badly, he might have held out but, most of important, was not in control of the situation.
The same holds true with military units. During a battle many units have been known to have defended themselves very well. To me this means that they did not or could not control of the situation very well.
I believe that a good "defense" is a very strong offense. One should take control of any situation and not let your opponent control it. This does not mean that you will always win but it is a needed step on a path to a win or surviving. In many cases this can depend on your ability to take control of the situation.

On multiple attacks, if you sit back and defend they will not have any offensive pressure but on them so now they can work together as an offensive multi front.
This is a mind set I know but it is a students training that will develop a "defensive" or "offensive" mind set.
State of mind = your actions.
:boxing:

Hello,
I agree, I think...

As long as you do not become the real instigater of the "altercation" I do believe in a strong offense being one of the best defenses.

We live in a society steeped in litigation. You would not wish to be the one "targeted" by the legal boys. I think that is why the term self-DEFENSE is used so often. While there are cases that you are justified in attacking first, I think they are generally in the minority. I think that when one is facing multiple "potential" attackers striking first does have merit. You will, of course, have to prove (if the legal system gets ahold of you) that you felt threatened to the level of "attacking" the group of "miscreants" on some level. :)

I think I see what you are getting at, and think I agree wholeheartedly.

Good topic, Thank you.
Milt G.
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
When we use the term self defense we mean that you don't go out of your way to initiate a fight. It is made clear in class that no one has the right to lay a hand on you or threaten you and we have every right to take physical action if the situation cannot be resolved by peaceful means. I see nothing wrong with the term, it's more how you explain it and how you train.
Good points made and good thread.
My Sifu always said and so do I: "offense is defense and defense is offense." He also said as soon as you know someone is going to raise their hands(to fight). You hit them.
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
Interesting thought. It seems we are leaning towards 'self offense'!! Wonder what the legal people think of that?
icon10.gif
 

James Kovacich

Senior Master
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
2,900
Reaction score
51
Location
San Jose, Ca.
"Offense is defense and defense is offense" is a simple concept that Gung Fu based systems share. The "as you know someone is going to raise their hands(to fight) You hit them," I doubt very much Sifu was the first to think of that.

Legality is irrevalent in a confrontation in which you have no way of knowing how it will end.
 

Chris Parker

Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
6,259
Reaction score
1,104
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Interesting thought. It seems we are leaning towards 'self offense'!! Wonder what the legal people think of that?
icon10.gif

Hi, K-man,

Well, you're here in Australia with me, so this will most likely be a little more pertinent to you than possibly others.

Here in Australia we have a legal concept which is known as "present ability". In short, what it means is that if you feel threatened, and the person threatening you has the ability to carry out the threat to your person, then you are legally justified in hitting first. In other words, if a guy is walking towards you, screaming abuse about how you were looking at his girl, removing his jacket etc, you can (and should!) hit him first in order to safely make your escape. But if he is just yelling it from the other side of the room, and not moving towards you, but you cross the room to hit him, that is considered assault.

The essential part of our assault and self defence laws are geared around the concept of escape safely at the first available opportunity. And if that opportunity is created with a first strike, then that is fine. It just needs to stay within the confines of reasonable force as well, don't keep following up with more strikes and kicks to the head, don't pre-emptively knock out some young kid that couldn't possibly follow through on their threat.

Of course, the flip side is some of the crazier laws around. Queensland, for instance, has a law that means you can be arrested for "inciting fear". No matter what you do, if someone says they felt fear because of it, you can be arrested for it. If you raise a fluffy pink tube, and someone says that you were going to hit them and they got scared, that, believe it or not, is an arrestable offence in Queensland. Go figure...
 

K-man

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
6,193
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Australia
Of course, the flip side is some of the crazier laws around. Queensland, for instance, has a law that means you can be arrested for "inciting fear". No matter what you do, if someone says they felt fear because of it, you can be arrested for it. If you raise a fluffy pink tube, and someone says that you were going to hit them and they got scared, that, believe it or not, is an arrestable offence in Queensland. Go figure...
And therin lies another great reason for living in the south!!
icon6.gif
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
First and most important the following is my own point of view on this subject and not an attack on any system or person.
There are many martial arts systems that teach a self defense type of a system and to me there is nothing wrong with this.

I tend to look at "Self Defense" as a negitive. One often hears about a fighter who defended himself well during a fight. To me this means that the fighter was beaten badly, he might have held out but, most of important, was not in control of the situation.

The same holds true with military units. During a battle many units have been known to have defended themselves very well. To me this means that they did not or could not control of the situation very well.

With the military, I can see...there are so many factors in combat (teamwork, tactics, leadership, training...) but with an individual, this comes dangerously close to a 'blame the victim' mentality. I do think many situations can be prevented, others cannot.

I believe that a good "defense" is a very strong offense. One should take control of any situation and not let your opponent control it. This does not mean that you will always win but it is a needed step on a path to a win or surviving. In many cases this can depend on your ability to take control of the situation.

On multiple attacks, if you sit back and defend they will not have any offensive pressure but on them so now they can work together as an offensive multi front.
This is a mind set I know but it is a students training that will develop a "defensive" or "offensive" mind set.
State of mind = your actions.
:boxing:

I think this illustrates how complex "self-defense" truly is. Kenpo tends to categorize techniques according to the attack they defend against, perhaps this leads to "defense means the other guy strikes first" mindset? Not sure. :idunno:
 
OP
LawDog

LawDog

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
52
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Carol,
Remember in many situations the attacker does not have to "throw" the first strike.
Besides an attack there are also "active" and "passive" threats.
When there is an active threat, especially with a weapon, you can respond with a pre-emptive move.
Examples,
*If a person is holding a knife and states that he is going to stick you, then responding with pre-emptive impacts, pushes and / or throws is good.
*The same is true when a person raises up a fist and states that he is going to "break your face" with it then using a pre-emptive move is good.
And so on.
:supcool:
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,959
Reaction score
1,056
Carol,
Remember in many situations the attacker does not have to "throw" the first strike.
Besides an attack there are also "active" and "passive" threats.
When there is an active threat, especially with a weapon, you can respond with a pre-emptive move.
Examples,
*If a person is holding a knife and states that he is going to stick you, then responding with pre-emptive impacts, pushes and / or throws is good.
*The same is true when a person raises up a fist and states that he is going to "break your face" with it then using a pre-emptive move is good.
And so on.
:supcool:

Agreed, the other key thing is being able to articulate those reasons if you are talking with the police. To claim self-defense you have the "duty to retreat" in many states (as always, consult your local laws and how the current prosecutor interprets them and seek the legal advise of a lawyer) this means that YOU have to attempt to leave the situation before it becomes physical. This means that the two of you arguing back and forth calling each others names and the guy pushes you, is NOT self-defense you were a willing participant through the process. If you can articulate your attempt to leave and/or why you COULDN'T leave or increase distance from them, then you have fulfilled the first requirement that many states have. The second thing is articulated "why" you hit them first. As Mr. Cunningham pointed out, if someone is drawing back their fist and telling you they are going to hit you and you can state why that was a credible threat and the person had the means to carry it out you can protect yourself at that point. If we are 20 feet apart and the person does the same action and hasn't made an attempt to close the distance with you, than at that point they don't have the ability to carry out the threat. You would not be justified in running at them and drop kicking them. LOL
 

Touch Of Death

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
11,610
Reaction score
848
Location
Spokane Valley WA
First and most important the following is my own point of view on this subject and not an attack on any system or person.
There are many martial arts systems that teach a self defense type of a system and to me there is nothing wrong with this.
I tend to look at "Self Defense" as a negitive. One often hears about a fighter who defended himself well during a fight. To me this means that the fighter was beaten badly, he might have held out but, most of important, was not in control of the situation.
The same holds true with military units. During a battle many units have been known to have defended themselves very well. To me this means that they did not or could not control of the situation very well.
I believe that a good "defense" is a very strong offense. One should take control of any situation and not let your opponent control it. This does not mean that you will always win but it is a needed step on a path to a win or surviving. In many cases this can depend on your ability to take control of the situation.

On multiple attacks, if you sit back and defend they will not have any offensive pressure but on them so now they can work together as an offensive multi front.
This is a mind set I know but it is a students training that will develop a "defensive" or "offensive" mind set.
State of mind = your actions.
:boxing:
I think its important not to fall into sport mentalities and habbits during a real life situation; so, I think its important to market "self defense" in your system if that is indeed what you offer.
Sean
 
OP
LawDog

LawDog

Master Black Belt
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Messages
1,324
Reaction score
52
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Chris,
Your not alone with the "fear" thing. Our domestic violence laws have a little provision in it, if a person who is a relative or has had a relationship with you is afraid of you, even if you did nothing to cause the fear, it's cuff em and stuff em time.
Right or wrong is not the subject here.

I know, I am a little of subject here.
 

Hudson69

Brown Belt
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
419
Reaction score
20
Location
Utah
I think the Army has it right when they call their system Combatives. My department still calls our proprietary system Defensive Tactics but being an instructor we drill new recruit officers and veterans alike that we do not wait for someone to hit or attempt to hit us in order to take action.

A small example of this is scenario training with a party who is passive resistive but begins either making statements about fighting/not-going to jail or rolling his hands into fists. If any of these take place and there is reason to go hands on then we can engage in an offensive manner. We do not wait until the other person is set to attack. I hear that Krav is like this as well. There is rumor that we will soon be calling our system Police Combatives but I will believe that when I see it.
 

Latest Discussions

Top