Under responding to credible threats

[Jared Traveler]

As a former police academy defensive tactics/martial arts instructor, I quickly realized that almost everyone has a deep aversion to damaging another human being in self-defense.

Don't misunderstand me, if someone is angry, and has hate in their heart, they can easily destroy. Most of us can be driven to violence if pushed far enough. However the difference is, in almost all self-defense situations, you would rather not be in that situation. You would rather continue on your day in that moment, not crush, break, choke, slam, or smash another human being.

Also fight experience in the form of sparring or competition, is not the same as applying counter violence to a sudden, unexpected threat. Because their is concent involved, and also ultimately you are not trying to do real damage.

I know so many trained people who in the moment of truth, soft balled their technique against a real threat. Some of this is training scars from "protecting your partner" in the gym. For instance not landing your weight on them in judo after a throw, or by pulling your punch in kickboxing. But there are a lot of reasons trained people under respond to violence.

I have softballed my own techniques a few times, especially early on in life. And certainly I have under responded to threats on occasion. I know this post will likely invoke a lot of tough talk, but ultimately tough talk is just that. The reality is, this is an important thing to contemplate for anyone planning on using force in self-defense.

Your observations and experience? Have you ever walked away from a confrontation and thought....

I should have hit that guy. Or, I should have said...... But you didn't. Or you hit them once, but realized after you should have kept hitting them? Something like that?

You under responded, for whatever reason. It's very common.

 

[O'Malley]

It's under-responding only if the threat has caused damage that you could have prevented by escalating.

If not, it's often just a matter of pride, which is not worth escalating over, especially if it means getting in legal trouble or putting those around you in danger. But yeah, it happens.

 

[lklawson]

As a former police academy defensive tactics/martial arts instructor, I quickly realized that almost everyone has a deep aversion to damaging another human being in self-defense.

Don't misunderstand me, if someone is angry, and has hate in their heart, they can easily destroy. Most of us can be driven to violence if pushed far enough. However the difference is, in almost all self-defense situations, you would rather not be in that situation. You would rather continue on your day in that moment, not crush, break, choke, slam, or smash another human being.

Also fight experience in the form of sparring or competition, is not the same as applying counter violence to a sudden, unexpected threat. Because their is concent involved, and also ultimately you are not trying to do real damage.

I know so many trained people who in the moment of truth, soft balled their technique against a real threat. Some of this is training scars from "protecting your partner" in the gym. For instance not landing your weight on them in judo after a throw, or by pulling your punch in kickboxing. But there are a lot of reasons trained people under respond to violence.

I have softballed my own techniques a few times, especially early on in life. And certainly I have under responded to threats on occasion. I know this post will likely invoke a lot of tough talk, but ultimately tough talk is just that. The reality is, this is an important thing to contemplate for anyone planning on using force in self-defense.

Your observations and experience? Have you ever walked away from a confrontation and thought....

I should have hit that guy. Or, I should have said...... But you didn't. Or you hit them once, but realized after you should have kept hitting them? Something like that?

You under responded, for whatever reason. It's very common.

Who says it's "under responding?"

Lots of people like to talk about how "real fights don't have rules" but, in truth, they often do. The are usually social rules which guide how much force is used, how "deadly" it might be, or whether or not weapons are allowed and, if so, which ones.

One example is the "Bar fight." The socially enforced norms mean that they're usually not intended to be deadly or crippling.

Another example is the periodically referenced "Educational Beatdown." If you kill or maim the target, then they don't learn the lesson.

A historic example comes from 19th Century Ireland where Faction Fights were common. They involved sticks and sometimes flails but edged weapons (knives, etc.) were particularly frowned upon. When people would die from being bludgeoned, it was considered just an accident and a risk you take for joining a faction fight. But stabbings were considered flat out murder.

So it is today. Even if you are being attacked, it might not be a deadly force situation. Many times it totally is, without any doubt. But sometimes it isn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Holmejr]

for most of us the legal ramifications, both criminal and civil are more daunting than the beating. Lol.

 

[lklawson]

for most of us the legal ramifications, both criminal and civil are more daunting than the beating. Lol.

I know of one Defense lawyer who says that, no matter how justified the self defense action is, if you go to court there is a non-zero chance that you will be convicted, lose your job, life savings, house, family, and your liberty. So be darn sure that if you're going to engage in Deadly Force for self defense, that it is a Deadly Force threat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Rich Parsons]

As a former police academy defensive tactics/martial arts instructor, I quickly realized that almost everyone has a deep aversion to damaging another human being in self-defense.

Don't misunderstand me, if someone is angry, and has hate in their heart, they can easily destroy. Most of us can be driven to violence if pushed far enough. However the difference is, in almost all self-defense situations, you would rather not be in that situation. You would rather continue on your day in that moment, not crush, break, choke, slam, or smash another human being.

Also fight experience in the form of sparring or competition, is not the same as applying counter violence to a sudden, unexpected threat. Because their is concent involved, and also ultimately you are not trying to do real damage.

I know so many trained people who in the moment of truth, soft balled their technique against a real threat. Some of this is training scars from "protecting your partner" in the gym. For instance not landing your weight on them in judo after a throw, or by pulling your punch in kickboxing. But there are a lot of reasons trained people under respond to violence.

I have softballed my own techniques a few times, especially early on in life. And certainly I have under responded to threats on occasion. I know this post will likely invoke a lot of tough talk, but ultimately tough talk is just that. The reality is, this is an important thing to contemplate for anyone planning on using force in self-defense.

Your observations and experience? Have you ever walked away from a confrontation and thought....

I should have hit that guy. Or, I should have said...... But you didn't. Or you hit them once, but realized after you should have kept hitting them? Something like that?

You under responded, for whatever reason. It's very common.

While bouncing / security and managing a place , a general question from a patron was asked, "They called you ever name in the book. They insulted you and your family and then some. Why did you just keep telling them to leave and giving them room to do so? "
...
My reply, " Well, they are driving north trying to find something to do for fun. I am here with no police and no one in the hospital. I win.
And besides I have a long memory when they come back in a week or so, I'll just ask them to leave again, and keep asking them until they apologize and mean it, or I forget them. "

He Laughed.
I laughed.

I went about my night.

 

[Buka]

I know of one Defense lawyer who says that, no matter how justified the self defense action is, if you go to court there is a non-zero chance that you will be convicted, lose your job, life savings, house, family, and your liberty. So be darn sure that if you're going to engage in Deadly Force for self defense, that it is a Deadly Force threat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Quite true. And, depending on where you live, it's even more difficult and dangerous for a cop.
A very large local guy went nuts at the TSA checkpoint a month ago. Our department responded. Four cops were hurt, two were hospitalized. The local guy wasn't hurt at all, just subdued. (with much difficulty)

He was arrested, judge let him out with a hundred dollar bail. He'll have no charges to answer to, the courts here will let him go, he'll probably sue and win.

 

[Steve]

As a former police academy defensive tactics/martial arts instructor, I quickly realized that almost everyone has a deep aversion to damaging another human being in self-defense.

Don't misunderstand me, if someone is angry, and has hate in their heart, they can easily destroy. Most of us can be driven to violence if pushed far enough. However the difference is, in almost all self-defense situations, you would rather not be in that situation. You would rather continue on your day in that moment, not crush, break, choke, slam, or smash another human being.

Also fight experience in the form of sparring or competition, is not the same as applying counter violence to a sudden, unexpected threat. Because their is concent involved, and also ultimately you are not trying to do real damage.

I know so many trained people who in the moment of truth, soft balled their technique against a real threat. Some of this is training scars from "protecting your partner" in the gym. For instance not landing your weight on them in judo after a throw, or by pulling your punch in kickboxing. But there are a lot of reasons trained people under respond to violence.

I have softballed my own techniques a few times, especially early on in life. And certainly I have under responded to threats on occasion. I know this post will likely invoke a lot of tough talk, but ultimately tough talk is just that. The reality is, this is an important thing to contemplate for anyone planning on using force in self-defense.

Your observations and experience? Have you ever walked away from a confrontation and thought....

I should have hit that guy. Or, I should have said...... But you didn't. Or you hit them once, but realized after you should have kept hitting them? Something like that?

You under responded, for whatever reason. It's very common.

I've never thought to myself, "I should have hit that guy." Or thought that I should have kept hitting someone. That said, it's good to examine significant events. What worked and what didn't.

The one mistake I see over and over, though, is folks spending too much time examining what went wrong and why, and too little figuring out what went right and why. Leads to a lot of superstition and misunderstandings.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I've never thought to myself, "I should have hit that guy." Or thought that I should have kept hitting someone. That said, it's good to examine significant events. What worked and what didn't.

The one mistake I see over and over, though, is folks spending too much time examining what went wrong and why, and too little figuring out what went right and why. Leads to a lot of superstition and misunderstandings.

I think that's good you have never had those thoughts. Typically a rational and sane person will not. At least during normal encounters with other humans. With that said "Should I strike this person" is extremely healthy and normal self diolag in a self-defense situation where your at risk of being injured by an attacker.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Who says it's "under responding?"

Lots of people like to talk about how "real fights don't have rules" but, in truth, they often do. The are usually social rules which guide how much force is used, how "deadly" it might be, or whether or not weapons are allowed and, if so, which ones.

One example is the "Bar fight." The socially enforced norms mean that they're usually not intended to be deadly or crippling.

Another example is the periodically referenced "Educational Beatdown." If you kill or maim the target, then they don't learn the lesson.

A historic example comes from 19th Century Ireland where Faction Fights were common. They involved sticks and sometimes flails but edged weapons (knives, etc.) were particularly frowned upon. When people would die from being bludgeoned, it was considered just an accident and a risk you take for joining a faction fight. But stabbings were considered flat out murder.

So it is today. Even if you are being attacked, it might not be a deadly force situation. Many times it totally is, without any doubt. But sometimes it isn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Who says it's "under responding?"

Lots of people like to talk about how "real fights don't have rules" but, in truth, they often do. The are usually social rules which guide how much force is used, how "deadly" it might be, or whether or not weapons are allowed and, if so, which ones.

One example is the "Bar fight." The socially enforced norms mean that they're usually not intended to be deadly or crippling.

Another example is the periodically referenced "Educational Beatdown." If you kill or maim the target, then they don't learn the lesson.

A historic example comes from 19th Century Ireland where Faction Fights were common. They involved sticks and sometimes flails but edged weapons (knives, etc.) were particularly frowned upon. When people would die from being bludgeoned, it was considered just an accident and a risk you take for joining a faction fight. But stabbings were considered flat out murder.

So it is today. Even if you are being attacked, it might not be a deadly force situation. Many times it totally is, without any doubt. But sometimes it isn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I totally agree that their are self-imposed moral rules that exceed the legal requirements of the law. I think this is needed, healthy and important. Critical in fact to understanding self-defense. Because the law actually sets a low standard for making moral use of force decisions. It practically has to, because of its limitations towards the complexities of self-defense situations. So understanding the law is only so helpful in making use of force decisions. I'm in agreement.

In fact, this is a lot of my original point, and a reason people often under responded, although they are legally justified. My point is not to push people into an extremely aggressive response. Rather to recognize the fact that the general human bias is to way under responded to credible threats. Which is okay at times, but when assertive force is needed, and not applied, that's when it becomes a major potential problem.

To be clear this topic covers both deadly threats, and low level threats. With both a deadly force response, and also a much lower level of force, maybe something as simple as putting your hands up for protection.

I'm speaking specifically where the person in retrospect self diagnosed in retrospect that they under responded to a threat and we're not happy about it. It sounds like this hasn't happened to you?

 

[Jared Traveler]

I know of one Defense lawyer who says that, no matter how justified the self defense action is, if you go to court there is a non-zero chance that you will be convicted, lose your job, life savings, house, family, and your liberty. So be darn sure that if you're going to engage in Deadly Force for self defense, that it is a Deadly Force threat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

And this is part of why people under respond and hesitate even when it's clear action is needed. Has he ever represented a client who lost his job, life savings, house, family, and liberty for using legitimate justifiable use of force? I seriously doubt it.

I'm not interested in what a defense attorney hypothetically thinks can happen in his zero risk, desk job mentally. None of that matters when you actually have a credible lethal force in front of you.

The reality of what happens in the aftermath of lethal force incidents is almost universally misunderstood. I know a lot of defense lawyers who only understand how to represent guilty clients and know virtual nothing about legitimate self-defense. Part of the reason for this is that those legally using force almost never end up going to court. Which is good.

To be clear this topic applies to both lethal force and low levels of force, like pushing someone back after they push you.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I know this post will likely invoke a lot of tough talk,

You beat up your opponent so badly that

- he regrets that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- he finally understands why flower is red.
- he has to pick up all his broken teeth on the ground.
- there is someone on this planet that he should not mess with.
- he can't take care of himself for the rest of his life.
- death is only the begining.
- ...

 

[isshinryuronin]

If one resorts to violence ONLY as a last resort, and then only to the extent required of saving oneself or another from serious injury or death, all this discussion about legalities or morality is moot. Why? Because there is no longer any other choice available to you - It's time to do or die. Self-recrimination or jail time pales in comparison to death. Accepting this, one is freed from self-doubt and holding back. If some Mother F****r is trying to kill me, I have zero problem killing him first. This is an easy decision. It's actually a harder decision to fight when the attacker intends less than deadly force.

 

[Jared Traveler]

You beat up your opponent so badly that

- he regrets that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- he finally understands why flower is red.
- he has to pick up all his broken teeth on the ground.
- there is someone on this planet that he should not mess with.
- he can't take care of himself for the rest of his life.
- death is only the begining.
- ...

I think it's important to distinguish that what I'm suggesting is not excessive force. Rather force that in retrospect you determined was not sufficient based on the totality of the situation. While that might mean the above damage, it also might be a much softer level of force.

 

[Jared Traveler]

If one resorts to violence ONLY as a last resort, and then only to the extent required of saving oneself or another from serious injury or death, all this discussion about legalities or morality is moot. Why? Because there is no longer any other choice available to you - It's time to do or die. Self-recrimination or jail time pales in comparison to death. Accepting this, one is freed from self-doubt and holding back. If some Mother F****r is trying to kill me, I have zero problem killing him first. This is an easy decision. It's actually a harder decision to fight when the attacker intends less than deadly force.

I agree with the spirt of your statement and many aspects of it. But I would strongly reconsider the term "only as a last resort." Respectfully I think this misconception needs to be eradicated from our vocabulary regarding personal protection. I don't agree with it at all, it restricts you way beyond your legal obligation, your moral obligation and will like result in not responding or under responding to a threats.

 

[drop bear]

I can very effectively under respond. And so have less hesitation responding.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I can very effectively under respond. And so have less hesitation responding.

Drop Bear, are you referring to jujitsu?

 

[drop bear]

Drop Bear, are you referring to jujitsu?

The general clamping of people. Yes

 

[Jared Traveler]

The general clamping of people. Yes

That is a great topic that most people don't consider. Not all styles or techniques are created equally. If you can take control without hurting your attacker, you can do that in response to a lesser amount of violence being used against you. In doing so, you can often avoid things getting more violent.

De-escalation through early control can be very helpful practically and morally, when it fits the situation. I totally agree.

 

[drop bear]

That is a great topic that most people don't consider. Not all styles or techniques are created equally. If you can take control without hurting your attacker, you can do that in response to a lesser amount of violence being used against you. In doing so, you can often avoid things getting more violent.

De-escalation through early control can be very helpful practically and morally, when it fits the situation. I totally agree.

It is also a difference in approach. If I can shut down a threat then I am inherently safer.

If I wanted to hurt someone it would be more effective if they cannot hurt me back.

What I find happens is people try to fight with lethality. But do so from such an inferior position that they really don't achieve much. Except to escalate the response.