# Self Defense



## LawDog (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

"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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 3, 2009)

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. (Oct 4, 2009)

LawDog said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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 (Oct 4, 2009)

stickarts said:


> 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 (Oct 4, 2009)

Interesting thought.  It seems we are leaning towards *'self offense'*!!  Wonder what the legal people think of that?


----------



## James Kovacich (Oct 4, 2009)

"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 (Oct 5, 2009)

K-man said:


> Interesting thought. It seems we are leaning towards *'self offense'*!! Wonder what the legal people think of that?


 
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 (Oct 5, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> 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!!


----------



## Carol (Oct 5, 2009)

LawDog said:


> 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.
> ...



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.
> ...



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:


----------



## shaolinmonkmark (Oct 5, 2009)

K-man said:


> Interesting thought. It seems we are leaning towards *'self offense'*!! Wonder what the legal people think of that?


 


LOL!!!!!!!
Man, gotta tell the guys at my school about this one!!!
LOL!!!


----------



## LawDog (Oct 6, 2009)

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 (Oct 6, 2009)

LawDog said:


> 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.
> ...


 
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 (Oct 6, 2009)

LawDog said:


> 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 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


----------



## LawDog (Oct 6, 2009)

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 (Oct 8, 2009)

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.


----------



## seasoned (Oct 8, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> 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.


When their hands go up defensively, the oc comes out. Their action plus one.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 8, 2009)

This is another opportuntiy to remind folks to check into, and be aware of the laws where they live. 

In my state, someone doesn't have to necessarily take a swing at me for it to be considered "assault" and I am legally within my rights to use force if I percieve aggressive actions or even words as a threat. 

For example: If I am addressed by an individual and they say something to the effect of, "I gonna kick your butt" and are within range to commit an attack when they say it, I can flatten their nose before they get the the "..tt" completely out of thier mouth. 

I agree whole-heartedly with Lawdog and others that endorce a more aggressive stance on "self-defense." In kenpo, we also follow the principle of "defense-offense/offensive-defense" 

In order to help increase one's chances of coming out on top in a confrontation you have to become aggressive, and down-right mean. 

Within the kenpo salutation lies the concept of "asking forgiveness if forced to use it." I interpret that as asking forgivenss for having to become uncivilized and animal-like. One has to be more brutal than the aggressor to survive and you can't do that and remain humane at the same time. If you do, then you will likely lose. 

You must overwhelm the attacker to end the confrontation quickly and help ensure that you escape without serious injury or worse. The moment you drop your guard or back off without adequately dealing with an attacker you give them another opportunity to harm you and you don't want to give them another chance to hurt or kill you. 

Remember, you didn't start it...they did. They chose that path and therefore chose the consequences. 

I know that comes off as hard-line to some people, but that's just the reality of it. 

The streets aren't a ring and there's no referee to stop the match. Would you rather be the one in control and decides when it's over or do you trust the attacker to back off when you've  had enough? 

I don't know about you, but I'm not that trusting of someone who's already made it clear they plan on putting me in the hospital or morgue.


----------



## Sigung86 (Oct 10, 2009)

Milt G. said:


> 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.
> ...


 
Hi Milt!  Long time no talk.  I'm kind of leaning toward taking the term self defense out of my "titles"... And changing to self-protection.  That's actually more what we have become now-a-days.  Many schools using the term "self defense" in their titles don't really teach much of that at all.  Kind of like my taking a black belt in under a year in Tang Soo Do, back in 1969 fromt he ROK Army.  It was "basic" and vicious with the use of feet and legs.  It certainly provided extra tools for my Kenpo conversion in '71.

Now look at what most of the Korean Arts have become, at least in my estimation, and no offense intended to anyone.  Much of it appears to be a parody of a fighting art.  As a matter of fact, the Boeing Health Insurance Group considers TKD to be a Martial Sport and not a Martial Art.
Yet many of the TKD schools still tout themselves as martial Arts and Self-Defense and so the considered change to Self-Protection.

If  you think I'm wrong, it's Okey-Dokey... Please yell at me via private email so's I kin keep my squeeky-clean image.   :lool:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Oct 13, 2009)

James Kovacich said:


> "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*.


 
A lot of people are in jail who have felt this way.


----------



## LawDog (Oct 13, 2009)

Hesitation = hospital / grave.
:rules:


----------

