Self-Protection From Violence

[Buka]

Hoped to get to this tonight. But after a day dealing with a faction of the U.S government telling me that where I live doesn't actually exist - and, of course, that I must rebut in triplicate....well, you know.

 

[Juany118]

.

Important aspects of SPFV would include:

• lifestyle
• target hardening
• threat awareness and avoidance
• de-escalation
• physically fighting if the elements listed above fail to avoid an attack
• escape and evasion
• dealing with legal and emotional consequences of a violent confrontation

Many of the details of what is required for optimal SPFV will vary for individuals in different circumstances. The top risks for a 110 pound high school girl are different from those facing a 210 pound male police officer, as are the best approaches for mitigating those risks.

My questions for anyone who chooses to answer (but especially instructors) are these:

What aspects of SPFV, if any (as listed above) does your martial arts practice/instruction cover, either directly or indirectly?: I would say all of them with the possible exception of de-escalation. Basically he says "if you can just run/walk away, if you can't this is what you do." To me this makes sense though. In my job walking away isn't an option BUT I have yet to find a situation off the job where if I just swallowed my pride, I could walk away.
How does it address those different aspects?: in order. He repeatedly tells us when simply stretching "you are now martial artists, that is a lifestyle. Also every Saturday there is a conditioning class. Think crossfit with fundamentals of our two arts mixed in, and even with, the workouts.

He speaks of the idea of confidence (vs cockiness) and making it clear you are aware of your surroundings is a good first step to avoiding being seen as a victim.

He will watch us in terms of where we are looking before we start drills with a partner. If he sees us not looking at "elbows and knees" he definitely let's us know. When it comes to avoidance, kinda like above. Most fights start with someone closing slowly into your personal space, posturing, shoving etc. If that looks to be occurring escape if you can. Be aware of where the doors are, clear isles etc.

Fighting is what the majority of our class is about, the vast majority in fact and his attitude is if pushed to that point you fight for keeps, no half measures.

Escape and evasion see above.

He does talk about the legal issues of knives and the legality of knives in our State(well should be we study Kali). He was a LEO in another State when active so I did have to correct him on one thing though "knife length". He is also good about saying "even if you think it is legal by the book, watch your butt, it's deadly weapon and appearances mean a lot to." I do wish he went into a little bit more of the UoF continuum for open hand though. Going for a full on biu-jee and blinding a guy when you can't articulate "if I didn't it was my ***" could create an issue but I am happy with his addressing knives. It is always in the context of "the other guy needs to be armed or you think he is killing you." He always uses the example of the 250lbs bike whose knee he hyperextend (as a cop) but who was still standing and choking him out. THAT complete set of circumstance justified picking up the old school solid glass bar ashtray and breaking it over the guys head.

The emotional aftermath bit, not so much. Probably because he knows that he would go way far afield there, his professional training/day job is as a Forensic Behavior Analyst.

What percentage of training time is spent on those different aspects?
Given that the top SPFV needs are different for people in different circumstances, who is your training ideally suited for, SPFV-wise?
Given the practical impossibility of carrying out rigorous controlled scientific studies on the subject, how do you validate that what you are practicing/teaching is effective for the aspects of SPFV that it is intended to address? How confident are you in that validation?

Again in order...

The vast majority is on the fighting but the other issues are addressed, at least verbally as needed (people not stretching seriously, people not watching elbows and knees, poor turn out for a conditioning class etc) but again it's only when he sees a deficiency. We don't have a high turn over rate though so this likely explains it, he is basically preaching to the choir.

I think the balance is kinda middle of the road. Like I said we don't have a lot of turn over so the stuff that isn't about fighting is only raised when someone gets sloppy or he has a bad turnout for the conditioning class.

Validation? Well it's worked in real life fight/apprehension scenarios for me and the non-fighting stuff jives with what I was already familiar with so anecdotally I have personally validated it.

 

[oftheherd1]

Not entirely accurate. If someone attempts to kill me with a brick with great violence, and I knock them out with a blood choke or a clean punch to the TMJ, their violence is ended without violence of a greater magnitude and ferocity.

I noticed that too. No pacifist would agree with that, thinking that if you show them what the pacifist believes it the higher road, the attacker will marvel at that and for the rest of their life, eschew violence. I don't think that is reality. I would have said de-escalation would be a viable alternative if there is time to do so, and with the understanding it may not work so an alternative action should be at hand.

As to your post above, I think you are splitting hairs. I think you are saying that if you believe your defense is of a lesser violence, no matter the result, hoshin 1600's statement is entirely untrue. I think not only the application of power/violence, but the result, intended or not, are both part of violence. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise if you wish to try to do so.

 

[oftheherd1]

Hoped to get to this tonight. But after a day dealing with a faction of the U.S government telling me that where I live doesn't actually exist - and, of course, that I must rebut in triplicate....well, you know.

Perhaps send them a copy of the most recent Census Report, at which time be prepared for the Gov't Agency to tell you Census Reports are not considered reliable, but demanding a birth certificate from you to prove you are who you say you are. Then you might send a copy of your latest three tax returns, but make sure what their privacy policy doesn't allow them to share that with the whole world just because. You could also send them the instructions from Google from their listed address to yours, and hope they don't say that is not valid since Google isn't a reliable government entity (is there one?). Your local county real estate listing should verify what you say; oh wait, not an official government entity, worse, it may rely on information from commercial real estate sources. One last thing you might try is ... Well, that probably won't work either. Maybe ask the person you have talked to if you can speak to a supervisor?

Just, good luck.

 

[Juany118]

Not entirely accurate. If someone attempts to kill me with a brick with great violence, and I knock them out with a blood choke or a clean punch to the TMJ, their violence is ended without violence of a greater magnitude and ferocity.

The GNU absolutely correct, the choke however could well be seen as lethal force. Yes you and I know a proper blood choke only effecting the carotid and jugular, if applied correctly, can cause rapid unconsciousness and when released immediately restore normal blood flow, however the devil is in the fact that if improperly applied (crushing the wind pipe) or held too long it can cause permenant injury, even death. So I would put that one maneuver, legally, in the same category as the brick, even if it is only to properly CYA from a legal perspective.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

..A fight is something in which the participants agree to engage...

This is extremely limited definition of "fight" is rather idiosyncratic and matches neither common usage or dictionary definition. A consensual challenge match is not the only sort of fight that exists.

Your underlying point - that there are important differences between what happens in a consensual challenge fight vs. what happens when a victim of assault attempts to fight off an attacker - is well taken. I just think it's a distraction to insist on working that in to your definition of "fight".

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm enjoying reading everyone's responses. I'll have my own answers typed up later today. Didn't get to it last night because it was my anniversary and I took my wife out to the new Ghostbusters movie. (Excellent, highly recommended.)

 

[hoshin1600]

Hoped to get to this tonight. But after a day dealing with a faction of the U.S government telling me that where I live doesn't actually exist - and, of course, that I must rebut in triplicate....well, you know.

Far be it for me to argue but I think the government should leave the questions of existentialism to Viktor Frankel

 

[hoshin1600]

This is extremely limited definition of "fight" is rather idiosyncratic and matches neither common usage or dictionary definition. A consensual challenge match is not the only sort of fight that exists.

Your underlying point - that there are important differences between what happens in a consensual challenge fight vs. what happens when a victim of assault attempts to fight off an attacker - is well taken. I just think it's a distraction to insist on working that in to your definition of "fight".

I agree with Paul D and his definition. I actually got it from Roy Miller. We don't need to define the word fight for this thread but I belive the reasoning behind the usage helps define the type of conflict. And I am sure Paul was not referring to a challenge match but rather the bulk of bar style fights that occur that could have been descalated

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hoped to get to this tonight. But after a day dealing with a faction of the U.S government telling me that where I live doesn't actually exist - and, of course, that I must rebut in triplicate....well, you know.

I hate it when home ceases to exist.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The GNU absolutely correct, the choke however could well be seen as lethal force. Yes you and I know a proper blood choke only effecting the carotid and jugular, if applied correctly, can cause rapid unconsciousness and when released immediately restore normal blood flow, however the devil is in the fact that if improperly applied (crushing the wind pipe) or held too long it can cause permenant injury, even death. So I would put that one maneuver, legally, in the same category as the brick, even if it is only to properly CYA from a legal perspective.

The original statement was that it would require an increase in violence level. Even if we accept that a technique that COULD cause harm is the same level of violence as one INTENDED to do so (not an equivalence to me), it still isn't an increase in magnitude. And the punch to the jaw is certainly not equivalent to attempting to hit someone in the head with a brick.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I noticed that too. No pacifist would agree with that, thinking that if you show them what the pacifist believes it the higher road, the attacker will marvel at that and for the rest of their life, eschew violence. I don't think that is reality. I would have said de-escalation would be a viable alternative if there is time to do so, and with the understanding it may not work so an alternative action should be at hand.

As to your post above, I think you are splitting hairs. I think you are saying that if you believe your defense is of a lesser violence, no matter the result, hoshin 1600's statement is entirely untrue. I think not only the application of power/violence, but the result, intended or not, are both part of violence. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise if you wish to try to do so.

My point was that the original statement by Hoshin said a higher magnitude of violience was required. At best, each of the alternatives I presented is an equivalent violence (it would be very difficult to even argue that, given the attack was with a brick). Yes, violence (absent the odd outlier) is likely to only be stopped by some violence, but I do not accept that the response must necessarily be more violent to be effective.

 

[Juany118]

The original statement was that it would require an increase in violence level. Even if we accept that a technique that COULD cause harm is the same level of violence as one INTENDED to do so (not an equivalence to me), it still isn't an increase in magnitude. And the punch to the jaw is certainly not equivalent to attempting to hit someone in the head with a brick.

I am only talking from a "court room" stand point there, nothing more and I would agree it is not an increase.

 

[Paul_D]

This is extremely limited definition of "fight" is rather idiosyncratic and matches neither common usage or dictionary definition. A consensual challenge match is not the only sort of fight that exists.

Your underlying point - that there are important differences between what happens in a consensual challenge fight vs. what happens when a victim of assault attempts to fight off an attacker - is well taken. I just think it's a distraction to insist on working that in to your definition of "fight".

The point is not to argue on anyones definition of what fight does or noes not mean.

The point is that by continuing to use the word fight we allow the opportunity for people to continue in their mistaken belief that sparring/combat sports/consensual street fights are the same as civilian violence and also that the skills needed to be successful at sparring/combat sports, consensual street fights are the same skills needed to be successful at protecting yourself from civilian violence.

Whilst this may not be how some of us intent the word to be perceived, by using it we allow the possibility. If we stop using the word fight, we stop the possibility of people misinterpreting how we are using the word, and also mistaking fighting and fighting skills as being the same as civilian violence, and self protection skills.

 

[drop bear]

The point is not to argue on anyones definition of what fight does or noes not mean.

The point is that by continuing to use the word fight we allow the opportunity for people to continue in their mistaken belief that sparring/combat sports/consensual street fights are the same as civilian violence and also that the skills needed to be successful at sparring/combat sports, consensual street fights are the same skills needed to be successful at protecting yourself from civilian violence.

Whilst this may not be how some of us intent the word to be perceived, by using it we allow the possibility. If we stop using the word fight, we stop the possibility of people misinterpreting how we are using the word, and also mistaking fighting and fighting skills as being the same as civilian violence, and self protection skills.

Conveniently placing the expertise in the hands of guys who have probably not been a victim of the sort of assault you mention. But also don't have to show proficiency in any sort of resisted situation at all.

Hmmmmmmmm..........

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point is not to argue on anyones definition of what fight does or noes not mean.

The point is that by continuing to use the word fight we allow the opportunity for people to continue in their mistaken belief that sparring/combat sports/consensual street fights are the same as civilian violence and also that the skills needed to be successful at sparring/combat sports, consensual street fights are the same skills needed to be successful at protecting yourself from civilian violence.

Whilst this may not be how some of us intent the word to be perceived, by using it we allow the possibility. If we stop using the word fight, we stop the possibility of people misinterpreting how we are using the word, and also mistaking fighting and fighting skills as being the same as civilian violence, and self protection skills.

Then please propose an alternate term - like Tony did when starting this thread. I'll happily adopt an alternative term in this discussion to avoid just the confusion you talk about.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Conveniently placing the expertise in the hands of guys who have probably not been a victim of the sort of assault you mention. But also don't have to show proficiency in any sort of resisted situation at all.

Hmmmmmmmm..........

What makes you think those who teach "self-defense" don't practice with any resistance, at all? That's a huge assumption.

 

[hoshin1600]

the issue that i am trying to convey and maybe Paul as well is that the dialog and wording posters are using in this thread and in other threads gives the impression that fighting is fighting. i have mentioned before in an other thread that martial arts are a skill based combative form. what i am intending to convey is that if we look at violence as a problem, martial arts comes to the conclusion that the skill in punching, kicking, grappling, stance, ect ect...is the answer to that problem. skill is a component of the answer but not the total answer. it is the on going attitude of martial arts that if you fail to defend yourself then it must be because of a lack of skill and therefore must be again answered with more training in these skills. a lack of training in skill is not the problem. it happens often that well trained martial artists are over come by a sudden violent attack. there is no doubt that these martial artists have a good amount of skill. the next proposed answer from martial artists is..."well if he had been studying in my style, that wouldnt have happened". thus we get into the endless threads here on differences and effectiveness in styles.
all of this misses the actual reality of the problem. it is not skill or style. the problem is the brains inability to put the puzzle pieces together. the first hurdle is cognitive dissonance. this is the brains inability to fully grasp the situation quick enough to make a response. another symptom is denial. many people think "this cannot be happening". this lag in response time gives the assailant the upper hand and often a sufficient response from the victim never happens.
martial artists train in fighting skills but a violent encounter often does not resemble what is trained in the dojo. there is a gap between actual combat and dojo training. this gap leaves the brain to freeze while it searches thru known data looking for a response, in return because the two do not resemble each other the brain comes back with the answer..."sorry dude, i got nothing".
however if you are engaged in a bar room chest thumping ego driven "fight" it will more closely resemble dojo sparring and these skills can come into play. thus the reason to separate a fight and an assault.
so to partially answer Tony's original post, what aspects of SPFV do i train.... i use situational training that resembles what might be found in an assault and reality based role plays. both of these allow the mind to recreate real combat and how martial skill can fit into the equation. the most important part is for the brain to make connections.

 

[drop bear]

What makes you think those who teach "self-defense" don't practice with any resistance, at all? That's a huge assumption.

Cant quote on the phone. But "that the skills needed to to be successful at sparring/combat sports consensual violence, something something. Are not the same skills needed for self defence"

All resisted drills. All thrown out the window of relevance. And replaced with?

Who knows. It could justify any training at that point.

It is a classic i dont know equals god argument.

What made the big bang?
I dont know.
Then god must have done it.

It doesn't actually work when you look at it closely.

The street in its convenient vaguery gets this treatment a bit.

 

[Juany118]

the issue that i am trying to convey and maybe Paul as well is that the dialog and wording posters are using in this thread and in other threads gives the impression that fighting is fighting. i have mentioned before in an other thread that martial arts are a skill based combative form. what i am intending to convey is that if we look at violence as a problem, martial arts comes to the conclusion that the skill in punching, kicking, grappling, stance, ect ect...is the answer to that problem. skill is a component of the answer but not the total answer. it is the on going attitude of martial arts that if you fail to defend yourself then it must be because of a lack of skill and therefore must be again answered with more training in these skills. a lack of training in skill is not the problem. it happens often that well trained martial artists are over come by a sudden violent attack. there is no doubt that these martial artists have a good amount of skill. the next proposed answer from martial artists is..."well if he had been studying in my style, that wouldnt have happened". thus we get into the endless threads here on differences and effectiveness in styles.
all of this misses the actual reality of the problem. it is not skill or style. the problem is the brains inability to put the puzzle pieces together. the first hurdle is cognitive dissonance. this is the brains inability to fully grasp the situation quick enough to make a response. another symptom is denial. many people think "this cannot be happening". this lag in response time gives the assailant the upper hand and often a sufficient response from the victim never happens.
martial artists train in fighting skills but a violent encounter often does not resemble what is trained in the dojo. there is a gap between actual combat and dojo training. this gap leaves the brain to freeze while it searches thru known data looking for a response, in return because the two do not resemble each other the brain comes back with the answer..."sorry dude, i got nothing".
however if you are engaged in a bar room chest thumping ego driven "fight" it will more closely resemble dojo sparring and these skills can come into play. thus the reason to separate a fight and an assault.
so to partially answer Tony's original post, what aspects of SPFV do i train.... i use situational training that resembles what might be found in an assault and reality based role plays. both of these allow the mind to recreate real combat and how martial skill can fit into the equation. the most important part is for the brain to make connections.

I think the issue may be perspective. To my mind self-defense can technically devolve into fighting. For the civilian to my mind self defense starts with "target hardening", as noted in the OP, potentially transitions into deescalation but if that fails you end up fighting. The mind set needed to survive in a fight, whether entered mutually or via victimization is the same you are struggling with another person, either looking to end their threat/aggression and if that appears impossible looking for avenues of escape.

Now as for what happens in a fight, you are have right. Indeed a portion of it is mental. Are you actually mentally prepared for aggression? Are you mentally prepared or, as I sometimes say, will you "vapor lock.". This however is exacerbated, even overwhelmed by physiological effects. You can have the "mind set" for victory but when a real fight kicks in the fight or flight of the primitive mind dumps massive amounts of hormones into the body. Your heart rate rises dramatically and if you have not physically prepared your heart rate does funny things when it rises over around 145 BPM. Your cognitive function begins to degrade so problem solving and fine motor function gets compromised. You start to literally tunnel vision, your hearing even degrades.

Not all martial arts, rather the right martial art training can help with both of these. Confidence in one's abilities and, for lack of a better term, practicing the right mindset can help prevent the purely psychological portion of "vapor lock." Practicing what modern military parlance calls tactical breathing, what CMA has called dantian breathing, helps you to moderate your heart rate. The proper training will also place you under physical, even mental stress (but likely not enough to trigger a true fight or flight response). Both of these help to mitigate the effects of the dump of hormones when the fight starts.

Now does you "average" MA school in the local strip mall teach martial arts in this way? Not in my experience, bit the schools and/or instructors are out there.

As for the last bit, a "chest thumping fight" in a bar doesn't resemble a dojo. In over 18 years of dealing with those things usually this happens.

1. There is always a primary aggressor. The difference between this and the "true" victim scenario is that the opponent in this encounter didn't engage in the avoidance tactics or walk away when they inevitably could have. Instead they stood their ground.

2. The primary aggressor postures, chest bumps, shoves. They are testing the "target" deciding if they can "take him" or godeing the person into taking the "first punch".

3. There are no rules

4. The vast majority of the time, if one or both parties have friends there, the friends of the one who starts losing jump in. Upon seeing their formerly "winning" friend getting thumped by multiple assailants the other group usually breaks and runs leaving their friend alone. This is especially common if the fight ended up going to the ground.

Really no real life fight, obeys the rules of the average dojo tbh.