What Is Self Defense?

[MJS]

I have my own views, which I'll share shortly, but I wanted to put this question out for discussion, as I'm sure views will differ, which is fine of course.

So, what do you feel it is? Is it the techniques in your art? Is it the avoidance aspect?

 

[MJS]

For myself, I think its a combination of what I mentioned above, both the physical and verbal aspects.

Verbal: Being able to talk our way out of a potentially bad situation. Dont mistake that with acting like a complete coward, as I feel that that can backfire on you. Instead, I'm talking about talking, but still maintaining confidence while doing it.

Visual: Being aware of whats going on around you. Do you pull into a parking lot, park the car, get out, and while walking to your destination, fumble thru your purse (if you're a female) chat away on your cell, engage in a chat with the others that're in your group, all the while, being completely unaware of your surroundings? Or do you pull in, as scan the lot. Is there a vehicle parked in the area you were going to park, with some shady looking people inside? Is there a group of people in the area that look suspicious, maybe giving you an unsafe feeling? Yes, its very possible to avoid a situation, by not even being there, to allow the situation to happen.

Physical: If all else fails, yes, you'll probably have to physically fight. Having a set of simple yet effective things to do, could be the difference between surviving and not surviving.

Are all these things taught in your average martial arts school? Sadly, IMHO, no, they're not. Usually whats taught is only the physical aspect or what I call the 'during' phase. Yet we often forget about the 'before' phase and the 'after' phase. Sure, sometimes, the inst. will talk, for a short time, about talking your way out of things, but thats it. Is this drilled? Does someone actually put the student into the mindset, and scenario drill?

What about afterwards? The part where a witness, who may've not seen the whole thing unfold, calls the cops, and now you're faced with a potential legal situation. What about dealing with yourself, after the fact? How will you physically feel after the confrontation?

IMO, these are all very important things, things that should be taught and drilled repeatedly. Unfortunately, I think in many cases, they're not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have my own views, which I'll share shortly, but I wanted to put this question out for discussion, as I'm sure views will differ, which is fine of course.

So, what do you feel it is? Is it the techniques in your art? Is it the avoidance aspect?

I think it depends very much on context. Self-defense could be defense of your reputation, your morals, your belief system, etc. But in the physical context, I'll give it a shot.

To me, self-defense is defense of my own life and physical well-being. Period. The 'how' of that is somewhat irrelevant to me, as I'll do whatever I can, whatever I feel I have to do, to try to survive a life-or-health endangering situation.

That means a lot of things.

It means I try to eat better food and get regular exercise, because disease and old age are risks to my life and well-being.

It means I try to avoid risky situations which I do not feel a strong need to engage in. I not only avoid paragliding, but I also stay out of bars and dangerous parts of town. That doesn't mean that I live in my house, quivering in the dark, but it does mean that I think about the risks versus the desire to take that action anyway. There are times when I will decide to take risk for pleasure, duty, or whatever other reason, but I try to keep in mind that I am engaging in risky behavior, and sometimes reminds me to be on my guard more than usual.

It means I have prepared for events that might impact my life that are beyond my control, but not beyond predicting, such as weather or other disasters, natural and man-made. It means I am armed in my home and proficient with my weapons, and that I've taken the training sufficient to know when I may and may not legally defend myself with deadly force. It means I've examined my conscience and come to the conclusion that I can and will defend my life by taking someone else's if I must.

It means I try to pay attention to my surroundings and otherwise engage in what is loosely termed 'situational awareness'.

It means I train twice a week in Isshin-Ryu karate, read books on the subject, practice in my spare time, and engage in mind experiments involving self-defense techniques and situations where this or that defense from a martial skill might be employed.

It means I try to have an honest assessment of myself in terms of my ability to engage in martial-arts-based self-defense against an actual aggressor, including my stamina, flexibility, strength, speed, level of training, and any physical disabilities. That leads to not thinking I can 'handle' things that I probably cannot.

It means I try to keep my options open and not consider things like saving face, engaging in pay-back, taking insults personally, vengeance, or extra-curricular law-enforcement actions. It means running away if that's what I feel the best survival option is at the moment, or handing over my wallet if that is what I feel gives me the best chance of survival. It means I keep in mind that self-defense is not pride-defense. I do not care about pride, I care about hide - mine.

It means committing to the actions I decide to take. If I am going to hit someone, hit them and keep on hitting them until the threat is eliminated. If I am going to draw a weapon, aim and fire it and not wave it around and hope the situation will magically get better.

It means trusting myself with myself, and not worrying about what others might think of any actions I might take.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I like the idea of breaking it up into before, during, and after. So I'll break up my responde into that.

Before: Be aware of your surroundings, your demeanor, any local safety concerns in the area like recent crime. Learn how to de-escalate situations and learn to read body language. Know where exits are in case of an emergency. Know what is worth fighting for before you ever get into a confrontation.

During: Simple techniques that should be practiced constantly. The goal should be to escape. Once the attacker has either lost the will to fight or the ability, there should be no reason to continue further.

After: Escape to safety, call police. If it isn't worth calling the cops, then it probably wasn't worth fighting about.

 

[Supra Vijai]

+1 to what everyone else has said. If I had to sum it up though, in one sentence, Self Defense to me is getting home safe.

 

[elwin]

For myself, I think its a combination of what I mentioned above, both the physical and verbal aspects.

Verbal: Being able to talk our way out of a potentially bad situation. Dont mistake that with acting like a complete coward, as I feel that that can backfire on you. Instead, I'm talking about talking, but still maintaining confidence while doing it.

Visual: Being aware of whats going on around you. Do you pull into a parking lot, park the car, get out, and while walking to your destination, fumble thru your purse (if you're a female) chat away on your cell, engage in a chat with the others that're in your group, all the while, being completely unaware of your surroundings? Or do you pull in, as scan the lot. Is there a vehicle parked in the area you were going to park, with some shady looking people inside? Is there a group of people in the area that look suspicious, maybe giving you an unsafe feeling? Yes, its very possible to avoid a situation, by not even being there, to allow the situation to happen.

Physical: If all else fails, yes, you'll probably have to physically fight. Having a set of simple yet effective things to do, could be the difference between surviving and not surviving.

Are all these things taught in your average martial arts school? Sadly, IMHO, no, they're not. Usually whats taught is only the physical aspect or what I call the 'during' phase. Yet we often forget about the 'before' phase and the 'after' phase. Sure, sometimes, the inst. will talk, for a short time, about talking your way out of things, but thats it. Is this drilled? Does someone actually put the student into the mindset, and scenario drill?

What about afterwards? The part where a witness, who may've not seen the whole thing unfold, calls the cops, and now you're faced with a potential legal situation. What about dealing with yourself, after the fact? How will you physically feel after the confrontation?

IMO, these are all very important things, things that should be taught and drilled repeatedly. Unfortunately, I think in many cases, they're not.

Exactly why I previously posted the topic of " The role and knowledge of the instructor when training for effective real life self defense". More often than not training in various classes only focus on the fighting aspect, but the other aspects, which to me is the most important, is only "mentioned" and not drilled into their preparation.

We all know that fighting is the very last resort according to the situation, but do all of us training in the arts really know how to handle everything before the fight? We know we should try to talk our way out of it, but do we really know how to do that? We know we should be alert and aware of our surroundings, but do we really know how to be successful at this during our daily lives? We know we will be overtaken by fear and adrenaline, but do we really know how to handle it in a real life situation? Do we really know how to defend our safety without the violence part? The instuctor plays a major role in this no doubt.

To me self defense, or should I say EFFECTIVE self defense is this: Although I train for the worse case, I have NO intention of using these violent techniques on another human being. I live a nice, comfortable and relaxed life, staying away from trouble or troubled areas and bothers no-one. I have confidence in my ability to handle violence, but never will I provoke any. I try to be as vigilant as possible in any enviroment and constantly train my mind to use any enviroment to my advantage should the worse case happen. Then, should it be that my safety is being threatened in ANY way, I will make sure that the person responsible for this disruption in my life, wish he never tried taking me on. He will be hurt!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Then, should it be that my safety is being threatened in ANY way, I will make sure that the person responsible for this disruption in my life, wish he never tried taking me on. He will be hurt!

I agreed with everything you said up to this point.

IMHO, the entire goal of self-defense is to defend the self, primarily the physical body you live in. Anytime you engage in violent self-defense, you are at risk, no matter how trained you are, no matter how good you are. The goal of the confrontation, if it happens, is to end it as quickly as possible and end the threat to your life and/or well-being. Exacting vengeance in the form of 'making him wish he had, etc' is adding risk to your situation.

The attacker may very well end up in a crumpled mass on the ground, ruing the day he was born. However, that's not the goal. The goal is to end the threat. His ruing is a side-effect.

On a side-note, if you ever find yourself in a self-defense situation, and you have to talk to the police afterward (or a judge in a courtroom in a lawsuit), I would not use the language you chose. Telling a jury that you decided to make him pay for daring to attack you is asking for trouble. You were in fear for your life, you took action to eliminate that threat in pure self-defense. End of statement. The macho crap will turn a cop against you and give an attorney ammunition to come after you. Your words are important too.

 

[elwin]

I agreed with everything you said up to this point.

IMHO, the entire goal of self-defense is to defend the self, primarily the physical body you live in. Anytime you engage in violent self-defense, you are at risk, no matter how trained you are, no matter how good you are. The goal of the confrontation, if it happens, is to end it as quickly as possible and end the threat to your life and/or well-being. Exacting vengeance in the form of 'making him wish he had, etc' is adding risk to your situation.

The attacker may very well end up in a crumpled mass on the ground, ruing the day he was born. However, that's not the goal. The goal is to end the threat. His ruing is a side-effect.

On a side-note, if you ever find yourself in a self-defense situation, and you have to talk to the police afterward (or a judge in a courtroom in a lawsuit), I would not use the language you chose. Telling a jury that you decided to make him pay for daring to attack you is asking for trouble. You were in fear for your life, you took action to eliminate that threat in pure self-defense. End of statement. The macho crap will turn a cop against you and give an attorney ammunition to come after you. Your words are important too.

I'm saying it in the sense of hurting him before he can do worse to me, not because I want to be mucho in any way. I'll keep on saying, the only time when violence is ABSOLUTELY necessary, is when your life is in immediate danger. Violence has but one purpose - to hurt. If your attacker wants to rape or kill you, you need to hurt him so bad, he must be unable to do that to you.

If I did'nt need to kill him to get away, all I needed to do was crush his throat and drive the bone of his nose into his brain, it will make him remember that for the rest of his life, making him wish he never made that stupid choice. Yes, the stakes are high and I can and possibly will get injured in the process myself. That is why I will do everything in my power not to find myself in such a situation. But, if I NEED to FIGHT to SURVIVE, my aim will be to destroy my attacker, making him the unfortunate one for making the choice of choosing me as a target. I'm not saying I WILL survive the attack either, all I'm saying is I am not choosing to die here, no matter what, I am going to hurt you as much as I can and as quick as I know how to.

 

[elwin]

I'm saying it in the sense of hurting him before he can do worse to me, not because I want to be mucho in any way. I'll keep on saying, the only time when violence is ABSOLUTELY necessary, is when your life is in immediate danger. Violence has but one purpose - to hurt. If your attacker wants to rape or kill you, you need to hurt him so bad, he must be unable to do that to you.

If I did'nt need to kill him to get away, all I needed to do was crush his throat and drive the bone of his nose into his brain, it will make him remember that for the rest of his life, making him wish he never made that stupid choice. Yes, the stakes are high and I can and possibly will get injured in the process myself. That is why I will do everything in my power not to find myself in such a situation. But, if I NEED to FIGHT to SURVIVE, my aim will be to destroy my attacker, making him the unfortunate one for making the choice of choosing me as a target. I'm not saying I WILL survive the attack either, all I'm saying is I am not choosing to die here, no matter what, I am going to hurt you as much as I can and as quick as I know how to.

I also want to add that being mugged does'nt always qualify as life threatening. Many times it's just some dilutional fool who does'nt know any better, or someone who is too lazy to go work for money. In these cases just give them what they ask and get away.Should they want more or have other sinister plans for you, then it becomes life threatening and worthy of being acted upon by violence from your part. A quarel in the bar or disco, at school or on street does'nt qualify as life threatening, and therefore does'nt need to be resolved by fighting. If being called names or someone in your face shouting and calling you out is a problem for you, teach yourself to resist the urge to fight, it is just not worth it.

If it's only your ego that's at stake, turn the other cheek and walk away. Only when your life is at stake do you turn into a vicious annihilator.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Violence has but one purpose - to hurt. If your attacker wants to rape or kill you, you need to hurt him so bad, he must be unable to do that to you.

Sorry, I still have to disagree. Violence used in self-defense has one purpose - to end the threat. Of course that may mean hurting someone; that's probably even likely. But the goal is not 'to hurt', the goal is 'to end the threat'. The distinction is more than mere words; police officers investigating an attack don't really want to hear you say that you 'hurt them before they could hurt you'. They want to hear you say "I was in fear of my life and I defended myself to end the threat."

If I did'nt need to kill him to get away, all I needed to do was crush his throat and drive the bone of his nose into his brain, it will make him remember that for the rest of his life, making him wish he never made that stupid choice.

Again, you make statements that sound as if you're vengeance-driven. You not only want to defend your life, you want to 'teach him a lesson' along the way. That's not self-defense, IMHO, that's vigilante justice. And cops and courts don't care for it.

Yes, the stakes are high and I can and possibly will get injured in the process myself. That is why I will do everything in my power not to find myself in such a situation. But, if I NEED to FIGHT to SURVIVE, my aim will be to destroy my attacker, making him the unfortunate one for making the choice of choosing me as a target. I'm not saying I WILL survive the attack either, all I'm saying is I am not choosing to die here, no matter what, I am going to hurt you as much as I can and as quick as I know how to.

Your aim, again IMHO, should be to survive. If you destroy your attacker to do that, then fine and good, well done. But it is incidental; it is (again IMHO) a proper goal.

I am not a martial arts expert, but I have testified in court on many occasions and I have been present at many court cases. Judges like to hear that you defended yourself because you felt in fear of your life. They do not like to hear that you attempted to destroy the guy who attacked you to teach him a lesson. It just doesn't play. That's all I'm saying. It's not your job to teach anyone a lesson, and the court will remind you of that by finding you guilty of assault in a criminal case, even if you're the victim, and in a civil suit, you'll lose and have to pay your attacker for having infringed on his rights. Just saying. The words you choose to use can come back to haunt you. And sorry, but they sound macho. "Teaching someone a lesson" is Billy Badass talk. If you're not wearing black robes and holding a gavel, it's not your place.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I also want to add that being mugged does'nt always qualify as life threatening. Many times it's just some dilutional fool who does'nt know any better, or someone who is too lazy to go work for money. In these cases just give them what they ask and get away.Should they want more or have other sinister plans for you, then it becomes life threatening and worthy of being acted upon by violence from your part. A quarel in the bar or disco, at school or on street does'nt qualify as life threatening, and therefore does'nt need to be resolved by fighting. If being called names or someone in your face shouting and calling you out is a problem for you, teach yourself to resist the urge to fight, it is just not worth it.

If it's only your ego that's at stake, turn the other cheek and walk away. Only when your life is at stake do you turn into a vicious annihilator.

I agree with you; please don't get the idea that I think you're a bloodthirsty thug. I'm taking issue with your terminology, because the very words you choose to use can be your undoing, and I'm pointing out that even though you don't think so, you seem to have some need to inflict vengeance on your attacker to teach him a lesson. That can also have negative consequences. If you don't care about that, then go for it.

 

[K-man]

....and drive the bone of his nose into his brain ...

Mmmm! Maybe not. Urban myth unfortunately.

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=511

 

[K-man]

There is a narrow grey area between self defence and retaliation. Once the risk of harm to you or others is over you must stop. "Accidently" stepping on his ankle as you make your escape would normally be overlooked. Your use of your assailant's weapon to continue to inflict damage on him may well be investigated by the courts. :asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is a narrow grey area between self defence and retaliation. Once the risk of harm to you or others is over you must stop. "Accidently" stepping on his ankle as you make your escape would normally be overlooked. Your use of your assailant's weapon to continue to inflict damage on him may well be investigated by the courts. :asian:

And it is important (IMHO) not just what you DO but what you SAY. I would not tell a police officer investigating a crime in which I had defended myself from assault that I 'taught that guy a lesson' even if that's the effect it had. I would not tell him that I continued to beat the bad guy so hard that his eventual kids would be born with headaches, even if that's what happened. "I was in fear of my life. I defended myself. It was all so fast, I hardly remember it. I'm glad I survived! May I go now, officer?" That's it. Not "I knew he was done for, but I stomped on his head to make sure he'd remember not to do this again." Maybe you *did* stomp on his head a little, but you did it BECAUSE you were defending yourself and these things happen. Not because you felt he needed to be taught a lesson. It is a much what you say as what you do.

I think sometimes people lose track of that, or they feel the need to crow about it. Crow to your buddies later on. Do not say such things to police officers or judges unless you really want to become a bad man's girlfriend in prison.

 

[K-man]

One of my guys was involved in an altercation some time back. He couldn't even remember the fight. He operated on 'autopliot' until it was all over. Pretty hard under those circumstances to incriminate youself. Witnesses are important. If you yell, "Leave me alone" or "Don't hit me", people will remember and assume you were being threatened even if you make the pre-emptive strike. Anything you say will be reported, therefore as Bill has said, keep it really low key. :asian:

 

[Indie12]

"The One That Doesn't Get You Killed!"

 

[MJS]

Exactly why I previously posted the topic of " The role and knowledge of the instructor when training for effective real life self defense". More often than not training in various classes only focus on the fighting aspect, but the other aspects, which to me is the most important, is only "mentioned" and not drilled into their preparation.

We all know that fighting is the very last resort according to the situation, but do all of us training in the arts really know how to handle everything before the fight? We know we should try to talk our way out of it, but do we really know how to do that? We know we should be alert and aware of our surroundings, but do we really know how to be successful at this during our daily lives? We know we will be overtaken by fear and adrenaline, but do we really know how to handle it in a real life situation? Do we really know how to defend our safety without the violence part? The instuctor plays a major role in this no doubt.

To me self defense, or should I say EFFECTIVE self defense is this: Although I train for the worse case, I have NO intention of using these violent techniques on another human being. I live a nice, comfortable and relaxed life, staying away from trouble or troubled areas and bothers no-one. I have confidence in my ability to handle violence, but never will I provoke any. I try to be as vigilant as possible in any enviroment and constantly train my mind to use any enviroment to my advantage should the worse case happen. Then, should it be that my safety is being threatened in ANY way, I will make sure that the person responsible for this disruption in my life, wish he never tried taking me on. He will be hurt!

I put the blame for not teaching the before and after phases, on the teacher as well as the student. The teacher, because they should be doing this. If it means bringing in someone who's an expert in the area, then so be it. The student, because if the teacher isn't doing this, then the student should be going out on their own, and finding the info out on their own.

 

[MJS]

I have to agree 100% with Bills posts on the first page. While it may be tempting to get in one last shot when the guy is down, that probably wont be viewed too well in the eyes of the law. Now, just because someone is down, doesnt mean that they're done fighting, but once the threat is gone, we need to stop.

Of course, we should also be aware of what we do, when defending ourselves. IMO, the defense should match the threat. Ex: someone punching us, may not warrant dislocating the guys arm, breaking his nose, gouging his eyes, knocking out some teeth, taking him down and using his head and ribs for football practice. Now, someone attacking us with a deadly weapon....yes, I could see upping our defense.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have to agree 100% with Bills posts on the first page. While it may be tempting to get in one last shot when the guy is down, that probably wont be viewed too well in the eyes of the law. Now, just because someone is down, doesnt mean that they're done fighting, but once the threat is gone, we need to stop.

Of course, we should also be aware of what we do, when defending ourselves. IMO, the defense should match the threat. Ex: someone punching us, may not warrant dislocating the guys arm, breaking his nose, gouging his eyes, knocking out some teeth, taking him down and using his head and ribs for football practice. Now, someone attacking us with a deadly weapon....yes, I could see upping our defense.

Not to seem ungrateful for your kind words, but that's not exactly what I meant.

I'm not big on threat-matching as a civilian engaged in legitimate self-defense. Law enforcement officers are supposed to know how, when, and most importantly, be able to escalate force and use only 'appropriate' force to end a violent encounter. They're trained for that, and they're armed with a variety of non-lethal and lethal weapons. They're expected to only use that force necessary to effect an arrest or to defend themselves.

As a civilian (nowadays), I do not carry a variety of weapons. Nor am I (depending on the state in the USA) expected to be able to match force with an assailant. I am permitted (again, generally speaking) to defend myself from violence or immediate danger of violence, and that's as far as I define it.

In other words, as an example, if a person raises up their arm to strike me and I am reasonably in fear of my life or that I face imminent serious bodily injury, I'll do whatever seems appropriate to me at the time. Eye gouge? Sure. Kick in the pelvic bone? If I can manage it. Draw my pocket knife and open the guy up from belly to brisket? Sure, again if I can manage it. I'll hit him with a brick or a rock or I'll charge him, knock him down, and bash his head against the pavement until he stops moving. Sure, why not? The point is not what I'm doing, the point is why I am doing it. I am not engaging in tit-for-tat. I'm not engaging in revenge-seeking. I'm not trying to teach the guy a lesson. I'm trying to end the threat. I'll stop when the threat is ended - in my opinion. It might take awhile.

That said, there are states in the USA which apply the term 'appropriate force' to self-defense laws, and people have to be aware of the law where they live.

But my point is that far less important than what you do is what you say about it. If you reasonably fear death, you are entitled to defend yourself. The courts are very lenient about what a reasonable defense is when we're talking about a law-abiding citizen defending themselves against a thug who attacks them. But a law-abiding citizen stops looking like a law-abiding citizen in the eyes of the courts when they begin talking about how they exacted revenge or intentionally inflicted some serious injury when they COULD have done less damage and still stopped the attack. For instance, a person is forced to defend their life against a thug, and could (because of their training) stop the fight with a throw and an arm-bar lock. But they instead choose to take out the knee, permanently damaging the thug who attacked them. If they tell the police that, they can expect to be arrested. If they testify that way in court, they may find themselves working the rest of their lives to pay off the civil judgment against them when they're sued and lose. I'm not saying that they should use the gentlest method to stop the bad guy! I'm saying they should defend themselves and THAT is what they should say they did. Nothing more. How and why and what was going through their mind at the time is their business, so shut their mouths and state the facts - they were scared, they were in danger, they defended themselves. AND STOP TALKING. That's all.

 

[elwin]

Sorry, I still have to disagree. Violence used in self-defense has one purpose - to end the threat. Of course that may mean hurting someone; that's probably even likely. But the goal is not 'to hurt', the goal is 'to end the threat'. The distinction is more than mere words; police officers investigating an attack don't really want to hear you say that you 'hurt them before they could hurt you'. They want to hear you say "I was in fear of my life and I defended myself to end the threat."

I hear you loud and clear! But tell me this, when you find yourself in a situation when a fight for your life is the only option, what are you thinking about at that moment when it is ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW? All other things to avoid violence has'nt worked, the fight is upon you. How do you "end the threat" without "hurting" your attacker? What is your immediate goal, not afterwards when you have to explain yourself, but then and there? Then and there ending the threat MEANS hurting your attacker, injuring him so he is unable to pursue you further.

Sorry, that is just the way it is. If you haven't been in such a situation, or even just talked to various perpetrators causing such attacks, as well as survivors, I totally understand where you are coming from. But at that moment, during those split seconds that feels like an eternity, I don't give a rats bum about terminology. At that moment I don't dare think about police and any investigation, what I am going to tell them and how I'm going to tell it to them.

Vengeance has nothing to do with it. With all due respect,why would I have any vengeance? It is ALL about surviving and nothing else. We are talking about only the worst case here, the only time when physical self defense is required. It order to survive it, in order to effectively defend yourself, you have to hurt your attacker, period. Yes, end the thread by in reality hurting your attacker. That is the only thing you need to focus on at that moment, NOTHING else!

You don't think about explaining yourself BEFORE the attack. You did'nt make the choice to be in such a predicament. You did everything in your power to avoid such a situation. You do act in self defense, you are not lying about it. Afterwards you will explain that you only acted in self defense and that their was no other way out. But at that moment when everything is happening, terminology should be the furthers thing from your mind.