# Is being a cop self defense



## Steve (Jan 19, 2016)

Cop? Security guard?  Bouncer?  ER nurse?  

Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense.   I disagree.  Violence encountered as a function of your job is useful for developing some skills that also apply to self defense.  But putting yourself in harms way as a function of your job is not self defense, in the same way that being an MMA fighter is not self defense.   Comparing the skills and circumstances of a cop with someone who is not a cop is as distinct as the experiences of a guy who trains aikido and a UFC fighter.  

To be clear, I'm not saying cops have no insight into self defense.   Just as a professional bouncer, professional MMA fighter or professional soldier would have some insight.  But violence in combat bears as much resemblance to self defense as a cop taking on a gang of knife wielding pcp tweakers.  

I'm curious.  Am I the only one who thinks this?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

It is similar for LE. In addition to defending their own lives, they have one or more additional duties, such as not letting the bad guy get away, plus some restrictions a non LEO doesn't have.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2016)

FYI, I'm not having a good night here with bad memories, so I'm going to stop talking about this for awhile. No offense.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Actually that's not what I said at all


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

I said the reason and actions leading up to the violence is different.  But a punch to a cops head is the same as a punch to a dentist's head.  A bullet to a cops chest is the same as a bullet to a crossing guard.  A blade in the back is the same it doesn't matter if the cops being stabbed or a drug dealer


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Let me ask you this Steve if being in law enforcement isn't self defense because they choose to put themselves in that position.  Is a drug addict that chooses to go into bad areas to buy drugs using self defense of they try to rape her or Rob and kill her?


----------



## Steve (Jan 19, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Let me ask you this Steve if being in law enforcement isn't self defense because they choose to put themselves in that position.  Is a drug addict that chooses to go into bad areas to buy drugs using self defense of they try to rape her or Rob and kill her?


I'd say that the number one thing a drug addict can do as self defense is to get some help with the drug addiction.  Sure, martial arts skills might help in a specific instance of violence, but bang for the buck here is that rehab will be the most effective form of self defense that this person could possibly get.  Nothing will improve this person's risk for assault than this.

amd the experiences of a drug addict who chooses to go into bad areas is not at all the same as a person who is not a drug addict... Or even a drug addict who gets his/her drugs from a doctor.  

But this is a red herring.   Because the experiences of a drug addict aren't at all what most of us here will ever experience.   We are t drug addicts and so that kind of risk is just not reality.

In a different way, cops have training, resources and a voluntary, professional exposure to risk that is completely foreign to most people.  You took such great pains to detail the horror of fighting off a pcp crazed addict.  But what are my chances of running into a pcp crazed addict?   Nil.  

Here's a question.  How often,are you mugged?  Raped?  Assaulted while minding your own business in civilian clothes  and not working?   I hope your chances outside of your professional risk are roughly the same as anyone else's... Which is to say exceedingly unlikely.

In the same way. Professional MMA fighters purposely expose the,selves to violence.  But outside of work, their risk is a function of risky behaviors and otherwise long odds.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> In a different way, cops have training, resources and a voluntary, professional exposure to risk that is completely foreign to most people.  You took such great pains to detail the horror of fighting off a pcp crazed addict.  But what are my chances of running into a pcp crazed addict?   Nil.


Who do you think calls the police to report these PCP crazed addicts?  Regular folks like you that happen to run across them.


> Here's a question.  How often,are you mugged?


3 times on purpose working UC on robbery suppression details, 5 times buying drugs under cover, 1 attempt in real life 


> Raped?


Never


> Assaulted while minding your own business in civilian clothes  and not working?   I hope your chances outside of your professional risk are roughly the same as anyone else's... Which is to say exceedingly unlikely.


I agree Ive said that before.  Ive said several times chances anyone on MT will need to defend themselves is slim.  However there are several people here who have actually done it and sadly I run several calls a night where regular citizens  minding their own business did become a victim if not there whould be no need for self defense 


> In the same way. Professional MMA fighters purposely expose the,selves to violence


Is it violence or is it a sport?  Its physical combat but I dont know if Id consider it violence.


> .  But outside of work, their risk is a function of risky behaviors and otherwise long odds.


I agree so when some makes the argument that well I can fight in the ring so Im good on the street well you MAY be good in the street but one does not guarantee the other


----------



## Buka (Jan 19, 2016)

My friend, Bobby, was in Law Enforcement for forty years. As a rookie, in his first year on the job, he was pounding a beat in the city of Boston on the midnight to eight shift in the dead of winter. Walking by an alley, he heard a noise. He went down the alley, following his flashlight beam at four o'clock in the morning. He found the source of the noise. A baby, less than an hour old, had been discarded in a trashcan with the cover on. Bobby radioed for help but realized it was quicker to run the twelve blocks to the ER than wait for an ambulance. He tucked the infant under his uniform shirt and ran like hell. The ER doc later said that if he had been a few minutes later the baby would have died.

Bob and his wife, Katie, adopted that baby. It's one of his four children, who is now in his late forties. I know that has nothing what-so-ever to do with self defense, but it might have something to do with being a cop. It's a really difficult job, especially to those that haven't experienced it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> I'd say that the number one thing a drug addict can do as self defense is to get some help with the drug addiction.


I agree but that's of little comfort when she's in the middle of an attack. Is it self defense when she fights them off or is it not because she put herself in the situation?


> Sure, martial arts skills might help in a specific instance of violence


The specific instance of violence is what Im discussing
{quote]
, but bang for the buck here is that rehab will be the most effective form of self defense that this person could possibly get.  Nothing will improve this person's risk for assault than this.{/quote]
Right but is it self defense when she defends herself?  If your argument is its not for Cops because they put themselves in that situation what about her?  


> amd the experiences of a drug addict who chooses to go into bad areas is not at all the same as a person who is not a drug addict... Or even a drug addict who gets his/her drugs from a doctor.


AND?  that hs nothing to do with the question I asked


> But this is a red herring.   Because the experiences of a drug addict aren't at all what most of us here will ever experience.   We are t drug addicts and so that kind of risk is just not reality.


Again irrelevant to my question


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 19, 2016)

Steve said:


> Cop? Security guard?  Bouncer?  ER nurse?
> 
> Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense.   I disagree.  Violence encountered as a function of your job is useful for developing some skills that also apply to self defense.  But putting yourself in harms way as a function of your job is not self defense, in the same way that being an MMA fighter is not self defense.   Comparing the skills and circumstances of a cop with someone who is not a cop is as distinct as the experiences of a guy who trains aikido and a UFC fighter.
> 
> ...


The situations a cop faces often are, in fact, self-defense. When a cop is attacked by a guy with a weapon, he defends himself. That, by definition, is self-defense. That he is a cop (or bouncer, or whatever) doesn't change the fact.

Now, do they end up in situations most of us could (and probably would) avoid? Yes, so we don't have to include that in our general self-defense training curriculum (like house clearing). And they do thinks most of us don't, like cuffing a suspect, but even those things are analogous to general self-defense, since some common cuffing techniques include a lock maintained with one hand, which can be useful for anyone.

So, there are differences between what cops face and self-defense, but cops do, in fact, defend themselves from attackers, and when the situation is something a normal person might face, it is a perfect place for effective self-defense techniques.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 19, 2016)

Buka said:


> Bob and his wife, Katie, adopted that baby. It's one of his four children, who is now in his late forties.


Thats awesome


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 20, 2016)

Steve said:


> Cop? Security guard?  Bouncer?  ER nurse?
> 
> Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense.   I disagree.



Why don't you agree?  You have stated you don't agree, but haven't explained why it's different.

Given that most of the highly regarded self defence experts in the UK have worked as bouncers, and the ones I am am ware of form the US have worked as cops or bouncers, it would suggest that whilst it is not 100% the same, it is close enough to me at least, that they are similar enough that it makes little or no difference.


You have experience of, and need to learn to deal with, the inevitable adrenalin dump.


You are dealing with people who are “in your face” arguing/shouting and are close enough to sucker punch you.


You need the skills to protect the immediate space in front of you to prevent the aforementioned sucker punch.


You are dealing with multiple assailants.


You are in position where you will have to protect others.


You will be attached with the same sort of attacks (HAOV) you would in self defence.


You are dealing with weapons (knives, guns, bottles)

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just curios as to why you think it's different as you haven't really explained the differences.


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 20, 2016)

I think Steve makes some good points. Some detractors of MMA and sports combat point out that the fighter is prepared for the fight and knows what the rules are, they point out how different this is to self defense, and I agree that self defense and sport are very different. Cops, military, bouncers ect., fall into the same vein; they know when they are more likely to face a threat and they have backup and utilities to ensure they are safe. Both cops and sport fighters are able to prepare and have resources to prepare them for the inevitable. The sport fighter doesn't have backup and weapons but he does have a highly developed empty hand skill set against an aggressive, athletic, skilled attacker. The cop may not have the same empty hand skillset but he does have more experience with street attacks and violence, but the cops also has weapons and backup. Neither scenario is a perfect fit for civilian self defense, but it is difficult for a civilian to get the same training and experience as a cop,  which is why sport combat may be the next best thing and in some cases it gives better empty hand skills but lacks other skills. In short, not everyone is a cop, but cops do get some great real world exposure to street violence, but due to their resources they may not have or need the best empty hand skill set. What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 20, 2016)

OK, let's break it down.

An average citizen does not typically seek out situations where he or she is likely to have to defend themselves.
A police officer's job is to engage in intervention activities with perceived law-breakers, which are likely to end up with the officer having to defend themselves.

An average citizen is not required to arrest or apprehend anyone.
A police officer is generally obliged to perform arrests or apprehensions when circumstances dictate.

An average citizen typically does not have a range of lethal and non-lethal weapons available on their person.
A police officer typically does have a range of lethal and non-lethal weapons available on their person.

An average citizen does not have to prevent a criminal from escaping.
A police officer is typically required to try to prevent a criminal from escaping.

An average citizen is allowed to defend themselves from assault.
A police officer is allowed to defend themselves from assault.

An average citizen is generally not held to a 'least amount of force necessary' requirement when legally defending themselves.
A police officer may be held to a 'least amount of force necessary' requirement when legally defending themselves.

Although a police officer and an average citizen have very different percentages of confrontations that end in physical violence, *both have the same legal right to defend themselves.  *Where things get different are when we observe the requirements of the job of law enforcement.  For example, that they don't just have to defend themselves, they are expected to make an arrest when assaulted (rather than run away, which is often the 'best' result for the average citizen).  They don't have the option of letting the 'bad guy' get away; an average citizen has no requirement to pursue a fleeing bad guy.  

The average citizen, on the other hand, is typically not held to the same standard when it comes to defending themselves.  Despite lurid headlines to the contrary, many if not *most departments require that officers use the least amount of force possible to effect an arrest*; a citizen may get away with clubbing an attacker into a bloody pulp, while an officer in the same circumstances would be expected to stop beating the bad guy when the bad guy stops resisting arrest.  Please don't get into a political "I hate cops" diatribe about this; I'll withdraw from the conversation if it comes to that.  My statements are factual based on my own employment history.

In summary: The violence that a cop typically encounters is equivalent to self-defense in that both the cop and the citizen have the absolute right to defend themselves from attack.  It is different in that cops have jobs that often require them to put themselves in situations where a violent encounter is likely, that cops have a wider range of weapons to use to defend themselves with, and that cops are (again, despite recent headlines) required to restrain their response upon making an arrest, whereas the average citizen is generally not expected to use the 'least amount of force necessary'.  There are always exceptions, but these are the basic similarities and differences that I am aware of.

Bottom line: Whether I am wearing a badge or not, if some joker throws a haymaker at me, I am allowed to defend myself.  That's self defense, whether I end up putting handcuffs on the guy and hauling him off to the pokey, or whether I just curbstomp his punkin head and call 911.  Full disclosure, I haven't worked in law enforcement since the late 1980s.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.



I don't think anyone disputes that point. It does not, however, follow that nothing that works for a cop (or bouncer, or anyone else in harm's way on a regular basis) is good for civilians. Options are different, situations are different, but the attacker will do some of the same things in each scenario. Since these people have the most experience with being attacked "on the street", we should learn from that, figure out what parts would/should be different for a civilian, and train appropriately.

I don't think competitions give a better test or proving ground for competition than powerful, committed, realistic attacks in a dojo. When I visited another instructor's school and gave him an all-out attack someone might deliver in a bar (grabbing his jacket and shoving back hard, as if to knock him down or pin him to a wall, etc.), he dealt with it effectively. I gave him no warning of what was coming, though he knew something was coming (as, of course, also happens in competition). We try our best to simulate likely attacks in a variety of likely manners (uncoordinated, overcommitted, highly restrained, out-of-your mind angry, resisting, undercommitted, etc.). If I had the time and inclination to also compete, that would probably also help my self-defense skills. I just don't think it's a "this not that" question.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I think Steve makes some good points. Some detractors of MMA and sports combat point out that the fighter is prepared for the fight and knows what the rules are, they point out how different this is to self defense, and I agree that self defense and sport are very different. Cops, military, bouncers ect., fall into the same vein; they know when they are more likely to face a threat and they have backup and utilities to ensure they are safe. Both cops and sport fighters are able to prepare and have resources to prepare them for the inevitable. The sport fighter doesn't have backup and weapons but he does have a highly developed empty hand skill set against an aggressive, athletic, skilled attacker. The cop may not have the same empty hand skillset but he does have more experience with street attacks and violence, but the cops also has weapons and backup. Neither scenario is a perfect fit for civilian self defense, but it is difficult for a civilian to get the same training and experience as a cop,  which is why sport combat may be the next best thing and in some cases it gives better empty hand skills but lacks other skills. In short, not everyone is a cop, but cops do get some great real world exposure to street violence, but due to their resources they may not have or need the best empty hand skill set. What works and is good for cops is not necessarily good for civilians.


I agree to a point but that's not always the case.  I have been attacked out of the blue with no warning.  I've been attacked alone with no back up. When my wife was a deputy there where nights her closet backup was 45 min away if available at all.  And I don't ride 2 to a,car so if I call for help it can take 5 to 10 min for them to arrive.  Not unlike the response time if anyone else,was attacked And call 911.
And every tool I carry gun, taser, baton, peppery spray, and my vest  is legal and available to anyone else to carry.  
My comments on the topic however were not really made about the physical act of defending myself although It's moved that direction.  I was speaking about the emotional, and mental aspects of self defense.  Mentally there is a big difference between worrying about loosing a match and worrying about loosing your life.


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think anyone disputes that point. It does not, however, follow that nothing that works for a cop (or bouncer, or anyone else in harm's way on a regular basis) is good for civilians. Options are different, situations are different, but the attacker will do some of the same things in each scenario. Since these people have the most experience with being attacked "on the street", we should learn from that, figure out what parts would/should be different for a civilian, and train appropriately.
> 
> I don't think competitions give a better test or proving ground for competition than powerful, committed, realistic attacks in a dojo. When I visited another instructor's school and gave him an all-out attack someone might deliver in a bar (grabbing his jacket and shoving back hard, as if to knock him down or pin him to a wall, etc.), he dealt with it effectively. I gave him no warning of what was coming, though he knew something was coming (as, of course, also happens in competition). We try our best to simulate likely attacks in a variety of likely manners (uncoordinated, overcommitted, highly restrained, out-of-your mind angry, resisting, undercommitted, etc.). If I had the time and inclination to also compete, that would probably also help my self-defense skills. I just don't think it's a "this not that" question.


I can't agree with you here but you're welcome to your opinion. I do think it would be beneficial for someone concerned about self defense to have some street specific environmental or scenario training but i also think some competitive resistant training is more important. A dojo or martial arts class will never perfectly simulate reality, you've still prepared yourself for the class and you probably have a fair idea of what to expect. Grabbing a guy by the shirt and roughing him up is an okay simulation of a street altercation, but where you wearing head gear? Mouth guard? Could the defender punch you full force to respond? Defending against crappy attacks is not. The best way to train self defense. Some people are better naturally at attacks. It's my experience that if you can handle a skilled grappler you can very easily handle a sloppy takedown, or in striking you can easily defend a wide haymaker. Train to defend against a competant attack and an untrained attack will be easy. Problems arise when you don't see an attack coming, and other than a sense of awareness you can't train to defend a surprise attack. Even in random drills you still know you're doing a drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I can't agree with you here but you're welcome to your opinion. I do think it would be beneficial for someone concerned about self defense to have some street specific environmental or scenario training but i also think some competitive resistant training is more important. A dojo or martial arts class will never perfectly simulate reality, you've still prepared yourself for the class and you probably have a fair idea of what to expect. Grabbing a guy by the shirt and roughing him up is an okay simulation of a street altercation, but where you wearing head gear? Mouth guard? Could the defender punch you full force to respond? Defending against crappy attacks is not. The best way to train self defense. Some people are better naturally at attacks. It's my experience that if you can handle a skilled grappler you can very easily handle a sloppy takedown, or in striking you can easily defend a wide haymaker. Train to defend against a competant attack and an untrained attack will be easy. Problems arise when you don't see an attack coming, and other than a sense of awareness you can't train to defend a surprise attack. Even in random drills you still know you're doing a drill.



Here's my issue:  I don't disagree that competition helps. However, every time I state that, someone takes the opportunity to state that competition is better than SD training. There's zero reliable proof in either direction. All we can do is interpolate. In my experience, if someone is well-trained for self-defense, then defending against an untrained attacker is easy, except when it isn't. I've heard the same from folks who trained for competition.

Let's be clear, all competition is not equal. I won't for a moment accept that training in kicks-only competition is anything close to as useful for self-defense as either boxing, MMA, Judo, or self-defense training. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not going to prepare someone for street defense nearly as well. Still, it's better than no training, and I've seen videos of those folks using it on the street.

It's about HOW people train, and I can train with resistance without competing, and have done so. That's part of self-defense training. If it's not, then it's not really self-defense training.


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 20, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> I agree to a point but that's not always the case.  I have been attacked out of the blue with no warning.  I've been attacked alone with no back up. When my wife was a deputy there where nights her closet backup was 45 min away if available at all.  And I don't ride 2 to a,car so if I call for help it can take 5 to 10 min for them to arrive.  Not unlike the response time if anyone else,was attacked And call 911.
> And every tool I carry gun, taser, baton, peppery spray, and my vest  is legal and available to anyone else to carry.
> My comments on the topic however were not really made about the physical act of defending myself although It's moved that direction.  I was speaking about the emotional, and mental aspects of self defense.  Mentally there is a big difference between worrying about loosing a match and worrying about loosing your life.


I realize not every cop always has back up, but the officer does have other tools at his or her disposal as you point out. I'm not downplaying the dangers cops face at work. I'm just saying the experience cops have doesn't apply to most people and its not something you can replicate outside of law enforcement and security. Additionally, cops aren't better at martial arts than anyone else, I've trained along side cops and they're regular people. But I do appreciate the perspective they can add to training. 
There may be a difference between fear of death and fear of losing a fight. However, our coach still teaches us that things can go wrong in a ring and you might not walk out, there are rules but you must protect yourself and take the fight seriously, freak accidents can happen, so maybe it depends. I'd say my limited competition experience and the adrenaline felt was comparable to steer altercations I've been in, but they didn't involve weapons. 

All I can say is the experience cops have from events on the job are in a similiar vein to the experience competitive fighters have. It's something you have to experience yourself and it can't be passed on. A cop can teach someone what to watch out for, but until you've had a weapon pulled on you or a guy flip out on you out of know where you haven't had the experience to deal with that. Same for a fighter, you can teach someone to fight but until they've been in competition they're not an experienced fighter.


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Here's my issue:  I don't disagree that competition helps. However, every time I state that, someone takes the opportunity to state that competition is better than SD training. There's zero reliable proof in either direction. All we can do is interpolate. In my experience, if someone is well-trained for self-defense, then defending against an untrained attacker is easy, except when it isn't. I've heard the same from folks who trained for competition.
> 
> Let's be clear, all competition is not equal. I won't for a moment accept that training in kicks-only competition is anything close to as useful for self-defense as either boxing, MMA, Judo, or self-defense training. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not going to prepare someone for street defense nearly as well. Still, it's better than no training, and I've seen videos of those folks using it on the street.
> 
> It's about HOW people train, and I can train with resistance without competing, and have done so. That's part of self-defense training. If it's not, then it's not really self-defense training.


I agree you don't have to compete to train self defense. I just wager that a fighter (in some cases) is better prepared than someone who hasn't experienced an opponent who does everything in their power to stop you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I agree you don't have to compete to train self defense. I just wager that a fighter (in some cases) is better prepared than someone who hasn't experienced an opponent who does everything in their power to stop you.



We'd have to define "everything in their power". Obviously, we won't use that literally in relation to martial arts. Nobody is trying their best to actually kill their opponent (in competition) or partner (in a school). I have trained with folks in situations where the idea was simply to stop each other. We did what we could, knowing everything we knew, using all we had. Except that we held back enough to prevent injury. In my opinion, injuries are anathema to self-defense training. If I break an arm/hand/foot, there are several weeks where I'm far below capacity for defending myself. Competitors take that risk, and some suffer that consequence. It's a choice. Are they better prepared for a savage attack? Maybe or maybe not - (we can get fairly savage in our attacks - far more so than you'd expect to see in a competition). One thing the fighter will have is better reaction to being hit hard. That's their biggest advantage, in my opinion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I realize not every cop always has back up, but the officer does have other tools at his or her disposal as you point out


same tools anyone else in this state can buy and use.


> I'm not downplaying the dangers cops face at work. I'm just saying the experience cops have doesn't apply to most people and its not something you can replicate outside of law enforcement and security


Its not really about the dangers a cop faces,  However its no more dangerous for a cop to confront an armed robber as it is for thevictim thats confronted by the robber. Dead is dead the out come can be the same regardless of the clothes you have one


> . Additionally, cops aren't better at martial arts than anyone else, I've trained along side cops and they're regular people. But I do appreciate the perspective they can add to training.


Thats never been the argument.  This is about the mental aspect of self defense and how training in the gym or ring cant prepare you for the mental and emotional part of self defense.  It wasn't even about Cops that was just an example I also used Military, A kid growing up in a gang infested area who lost several family members to gang violence, even criminals defending against other criminals.  Steve fixated on the Cop thing because he loves me.


> There may be a difference between fear of death and fear of losing a fight. However, our coach still teaches us that things can go wrong in a ring and you might not walk out, there are rules but you must protect yourself and take the fight seriously, freak accidents can happen, so maybe it depends.


So your going to compare freak accidents that occur in the safety of a sporting event to real world violence?


> I'd say my limited competition experience and the adrenaline felt was comparable to steer altercations I've been in, but they didn't involve weapons.


Have you ever really had to defend your life?  Not a bar fight or street fight but someone really tried to end your life?


> All I can say is the experience cops have from events on the job are in a similiar vein to the experience competitive fighters have.


I disagree.  There is a certain level of safety in Competitive fighting.  You have a ref, corner people, weight classes, rules, Doctors on stand by, its one on one, and both of the fighters have agreed to the fight and to the rules.  Also for the most part fighters respect each other and while they want to win they dont want to kill or permanently injure each other. Thats why competition isn't comparable to real world violence. Not just violence Cops face but violence many victims of attacks face.  The physical part sure a punch is a punch it doesn't matter if its on the street or the ring. They arn't exactly the same degree of difficulty but close. In the ring your punching another skilled fighter so landing the effective stick may be harder.  On the street the level of skill the opponent has may be less(however criminals train too)  but you have environmental aspects to fight your not on a flat level ring you may be on a hill, or slippery wet grass, or gravel, there may be more attackers then one so they both have difficulties 


> It's something you have to experience yourself and it can't be passed on. A cop can teach someone what to watch out for, but until you've had a weapon pulled on you or a guy flip out on you out of know where you haven't had the experience to deal with that. Same for a fighter, you can teach someone to fight but until they've been in competition they're not an experienced fighter.


My goal isn't to be an experienced fighter its to survive.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2016)

I think this thread is a case study of how there is a lack of a universally accepted definition of "self defense".


----------



## Mephisto (Jan 20, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> same tools anyone else in this state can buy and use.
> 
> Its not really about the dangers a cop faces,  However its no more dangerous for a cop to confront an armed robber as it is for thevictim thats confronted by the robber. Dead is dead the out come can be the same regardless of the clothes you have one
> 
> ...


I don't know about our views on competitive fighting, we seem to differ. Their are rules but fighters take advantage of those rules and do everything they can to win. A ko can win a fight, fighters try to knock each other out. The ko, the tap, the ippon, are all symbolic of severe injury. A ref stops the fighter from continuing to strike a ko'ed opponent. Some fighters show more respect than others but there are no guarantees. It doesn't really matter though. What do you suggest everyone who is serious about martial arts do? Become a cop/military/security? I don't think that's a feasable option. Competition is a more feasable option but it's still not something everyone can do. However, anyone from any career and walk of life can go to a gym a train with experienced fighters and learn how to handle an aggressive attacker. I would still recommend they also look into or read some material on soft self defense techniques (situational awareness, deescalation, ect) but not everyone can quit what they're doing and change to a career dealing with criminals and street thugs.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 20, 2016)

There is a story about several blind men and an elephant.  I'm not repeating it as it's rather well known, but each describes the elephant based on the relatively small portion they had encountered; one as a tree trunk, another a snake, and so on.  Self defense, fighting, and violence are like that elephant, and the "experts" (and the rest of us not so experts) are the blind men.... We ea h describe the small part we see and deal with.  Where I work as a cop is different from where ballen works.  Being a cop is different from working corrections, or in an ER.  A bounced brings another viewpoint.  A pro or semi-pro fighter has a different take, just like a redneck in a bar.  None are right... and they all are right.  Rather than arguing over who has the better perspective,  why not listen and take what is useful?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 20, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I don't know about our views on competitive fighting, we seem to differ. Their are rules but fighters take advantage of those rules and do everything they can to win. A ko can win a fight, fighters try to knock each other out. The ko, the tap, the ippon, are all symbolic of severe injury. A ref stops the fighter from continuing to strike a ko'ed opponent. Some fighters show more respect than others but there are no guarantees. It doesn't really matter though. What do you suggest everyone who is serious about martial arts do? Become a cop/military/security? I don't think that's a feasable option. Competition is a more feasable option but it's still not something everyone can do. However, anyone from any career and walk of life can go to a gym a train with experienced fighters and learn how to handle an aggressive attacker. I would still recommend they also look into or read some material on soft self defense techniques (situational awareness, deescalation, ect) but not everyone can quit what they're doing and change to a career dealing with criminals and street thugs.



I haven't seen anyone suggest that we all must be cops to learn self-defense. The point made by me and others is that cops' experience is valuable and comparable to civilian self-defense *in some cases*. 

And I still don't believe that an "experienced fighter" must be someone who competes in competitions. Someone who tests their skill with other martial artists outside competitions gets a similar experience. Bonus if the people they test it with have had to deal with some non-competition attacks (cops, bouncers, someone who grew up in a rough area, etc.).


----------



## Steve (Jan 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen anyone suggest that we all must be cops to learn self-defense. The point made by me and others is that cops' experience is valuable and comparable to civilian self-defense *in some cases*.
> 
> And I still don't believe that an "experienced fighter" must be someone who competes in competitions. Someone who tests their skill with other martial artists outside competitions gets a similar experience. Bonus if the people they test it with have had to deal with some non-competition attacks (cops, bouncers, someone who grew up in a rough area, etc.).


I think there are some people here who believe that the experience of being a cop translates more or less directly to non-Leo self defense.   I agree that there is much crossover, but confusing what a cop does and what non-cops need as far as self defense is pretty pointless.   

Others have more eloquently made the points better than me.  Essentially, combat sports are not self defense, but there is crossover.   Being a cop is not self defense.  But there is cross over.

As I'm on an iPad, I will try to be brief.  if self defense is fundamentally about minimizing risk to one's self, how would the drug addict accomplish this?  Stop taking drugs.  Overcome the addiction.   Easier said than done, for sure, but no other thing will be more effective for that drug addict ballen mentioned.  

What's the one thing that a cop could do to minimize their risk for personal injury?  Stop being a cop.  The function of being a cop creates risk.  that risk is professional in nature, just as an infantryman in a combat zone is at risk.

Some of the skills are transferable to a self defense situation.  Not all.  Some of the tactics are transferable.  Not all.   But that doesn't make it self defense.   Rather, it's knowingly putting oneself at risk for violence while taking every possible means to stack the deck in one's favor.   Sounds a lot like a professional combat sports competitor, or fire fighter or anyone else who has a dangerous profession.   

And I agree with tgace.  I think this highlights the many definitions of self defense people have.     I'd go further and say that there are a few here who don't have a consistent definition, and use instead whichever meaning is most advantageous at the time.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 21, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I think this thread is a case study of how there is a lack of a universally accepted definition of "self defense".



Yes self defence is a very convenient concept that way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think there are some people here who believe that the experience of being a cop translates more or less directly to non-Leo self defense.   I agree that there is much crossover, but confusing what a cop does and what non-cops need as far as self defense is pretty pointless.


No,it doesn't more or less translate directly to anything other then being a cop but it more closely prepares one for the mental and emotional aspects of self defense when compared to playing a sport


> Others have more eloquently made the points better than me.  Essentially, combat sports are not self defense, but there is crossover.   Being a cop is not self defense.  But there is cross over.


No job is self-defense.  You can't "be" self defense but many jobs require one to defend your life.  Which is different than defending your win loss record



> As I'm on an iPad, I will try to be brief.  if self defense is fundamentally about minimizing risk to one's self, how would the drug addict accomplish this?  Stop taking drugs.  Overcome the addiction.   Easier said than done, for sure, but no other thing will be more effective for that drug addict ballen mentioned.
> 
> What's the one thing that a cop could do to minimize their risk for personal injury?  Stop being a cop.  The function of being a cop creates risk.  that risk is professional in nature, just as an infantryman in a combat zone is at risk.


Thats all true but you can never reduce the risk to Zero.  So everyone should prepare.  Any preparation is better than nothing.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 21, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> However, anyone from any career and walk of life can go to a gym a train with experienced fighters and learn how to handle an aggressive attacker. .


It would certainly help you experience and learn to control the adrenalin dump

Although it is worth bearing in mind that criminals are not skilled fighters (they are skilled at criminal violence, not consensual violence), and therefore won't attack you with the same sorts of attacks, or the in the same way.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> I don't know about our views on competitive fighting, we seem to differ. Their are rules but fighters take advantage of those rules and do everything they can to win. A ko can win a fight, fighters try to knock each other out. The ko, the tap, the ippon, are all symbolic of severe injury. A ref stops the fighter from continuing to strike a ko'ed opponent
> Some fighters show more respect than others but there are no guarantees. It doesn't really matter though
> .


Yes you can be hurt fighting but, in general you don't need to worry about being killed.  That's the point I was making.  While freak accidents happen your opponent isn't trying to kill you and there and safety measures in place for your benefit.


> What do you suggest everyone who is serious about martial arts do?


I dont suggest anything


> Become a cop/military/security? I don't think that's a feasable option. Competition is a more feasable option but it's still not something everyone can do. However, anyone from any career and walk of life can go to a gym a train with experienced fighters and learn how to handle an aggressive attacker.


Yes train away thats good.  


> I would still recommend they also look into or read some material on soft self defense techniques (situational awareness, deescalation, ect) but not everyone can quit what they're doing and change to a career dealing with criminals and street thugs.


I never suggested nor encouraged anyone to change careers.  This topic was taken from a different thread and was taken out of context so Steve can play his silly game he likes to do.  He picks certain posters depending on the day.takes 1 small part of an entire thread and takes it out of context  and makes a new topic to try to play "gotcha" games.


----------



## Paul_D (Jan 21, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I think this thread is a case study of how there is a lack of a universally accepted definition of "self defense".


for "this thread" insert "half of this website" lol.

It's the biggest problem when trying to have a discussion about  any subject, the subject is never clearly defined, or means different things to different people.  To a lot of people on this site self defence  means fighting in the street or bars.  But if their Grandmother is worried about having her bag snatched would they recommend she go to the local boxing gym to get used to skilled boxers throwing hay makers at her?

Different people will face different types of violence, and so self defence will always be different things to different people.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes you can be hurt fighting but, in general you don't need to worry about being killed.  That's the point I was making.  While freak accidents happen your opponent isn't trying to kill you and there and safety measures in place for your benefit.


for most people, that's also true.  

I dont suggest anything

Yes train away thats good. 


ballen0351 said:


> No,it doesn't more or less translate directly to anything other then being a cop but it more closely prepares one for the mental and emotional aspects of self defense when compared to playing a sport
> 
> No job is self-defense.  You can't "be" self defense but many jobs require one to defend your life.  Which is different than defending your win loss record


which for the average person are both different from practical, self defense.  How does being a cop help any non-cop defend the,selves?   How does a person translate your experience as a cop, wearing cuffs, a gun, a taser, pepper spray, maybe a trained dog and the institutional authority of the city, state or county (and the good or bad that comes from it) into day to day self defense?  

Once again.  Is there overlap?  Sure.  Is it self defense?  No.  It's being a cop.  And as you say, being a cop is not self defense..  



> Thats all true but you can never reduce the risk to Zero.  So everyone should prepare.  Any preparation is better than nothing.


there are so many better ways to prepare than to go to the police academy and work as a street level narcotics officer.


> I never suggested nor encouraged anyone to change careers.  This topic was taken from a different thread and was taken out of context so Steve can play his silly game he likes to do.


whoa.  Be an adult, and take responsibility for yourself.  No one is making you read or respond to anything.   In fact, this thread would be a lot more interesting and constructive if you'd do less posting while on duty when you seem to be bored and want to stir the pot for fun.   You did recently admit that most of your posts are trolling the people you don't agree with around here.   I think you call hanzou the bjj mafia.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 21, 2016)

Mephisto said:


> All I can say is the experience cops have from events on the job are in a similiar vein to the experience competitive fighters have. It's something you have to experience yourself and it can't be passed on. A cop can teach someone what to watch out for, but until you've had a weapon pulled on you or a guy flip out on you out of know where you haven't had the experience to deal with that.



True, but they can simulate the attack better than those who haven't been there, to give a better idea of the situation. And they can also relate that experience to others, tell what worked and what didn't. We can't replicate the experience, but we can still learn from it without being in it.



> Same for a fighter, you can teach someone to fight but until they've been in competition they're not an experienced fighter.



I think there's room here for debate. Other than the spectators, what's deeply different between competition and intense sparring? You can use the same rules if you like (or not, if you like), set up much of the same environment if you like (or not, if you like). The only difference is likely to be the adrenaline rush of being watched, and there are ways to force adrenaline spikes in a dojo. It's a different (and probably usefully more stressful) experience, but competition is not the only valuable fighting practice.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2016)

Steve said:


> which for the average person are both different from practical, self defense.  How does being a cop help any non-cop defend the,selves?


I never said it did


> How does a person translate your experience as a cop, wearing cuffs, a gun, a taser, pepper spray, maybe a trained dog and the institutional authority of the city, state or county (and the good or bad that comes from it) into day to day self defense?


Well they can start by not trying to play "gotcha" and read what I actually post not argue things I didnt say. But thats what you do very often so...


> Once again.  Is there overlap?  Sure.  Is it self defense?  No.  It's being a cop.  And as you say, being a cop is not self defense..


No being a cop isnt self defense its a job.  You cant BE self defense,  Self defense is a action you do self defense you dont become self defense.  So I cant be self defense but I do defend myself all the time.



> there are so many better ways to prepare than to go to the police academy and work as a street level narcotics officer.


I agree and never said anything to the contrary so once again your making up an argument I didnt make but thats you so...


> whoa.  Be an adult, and take responsibility for yourself.  No one is making you read or respond to anything


Your getting kind of emotional Steve you might need to step away from the keyboard for a bit


> .   In fact, this thread would be a lot more interesting and constructive if you'd do less posting while on duty when you seem to be bored and want to stir the pot for fun.


Actually it be more interesting if you would stop making up arguments to points nobody made....But again thats what you do 


> You did recently admit that most of your posts are trolling the people you don't agree with around here.   I think you call hanzou the bjj mafia.


Actually I called you the BJJ mafia also #3 worst I believe and you cried to the Mods.  Ill give that to Hanzou at least he doesn't go running to the mods when someone challenges him.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2016)

Maybe you gust jumped to a conclusion only to find out later in the thread that you actually agree with me.  After the emotional issues Get sorted.  That's what I see happening.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 21, 2016)

*One thing LEO's* have going for them by the nature of their profession is an understanding of the law and what self-defense entails in general.  They understand first and foremost that it is a legal term.  There understanding of the law gives them advantages over other martial practitioner's that do not understand the law and how our legal system works.  That and in general they have also been involved in violence and no how deal with adrenaline, hesitation, de-escalation, etc.  All of that is pretty important when dealing with a moment of personal protection.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2016)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *One thing LEO's* have going for them by the nature of their profession is an understanding of the law and what self-defense entails in general.  They understand first and foremost that it is a legal term.  There understanding of the law gives them advantages over other martial practitioner's that do not understand the law and how our legal system works.  That and in general they have also been involved in violence and no how deal with adrenaline, hesitation, de-escalation, etc.  All of that is pretty important when dealing with a moment of personal protection.


Certainly, some LEOs are consistent in this.  But there are LEO (well, at least one) who muddies the waters with questions about issues of keeping people safe, or equating the skills, tactics and strategies employed by LEO in the course of their jobs as suitable for non-LEO in their efforts to protect themselves.

My point was never to suggest that cops have nothing to add to a conversation about self defense.  My point is that being a cop does not translate directly to non-cop self defense.  The two are not the same, in EXACTLY the same way that being a professional MMA fighter does not translate directly to self defense. 

We have seen plenty of threads around here where some people suggest that the very best training for self defense is simply to train in MMA.  We have a sub group who have argued vehemently that MMA is not self defense.  That the skills don't translate directly to self defense.  I happen to agree. 

But these same people don't apply their own rationale to what they do.  But I believe that it is.

More is better, and there's a lot of overlap. But being a cop isn't a reasonable self defense course to suggest to an average person, and further, working as a cop doesn't translate to being safe as a non-cop or even being safe while off duty.

Quick example:  a cop while acting as a cop has a badge, a gun, a Taser, passive restraints, a radio and possibly other cops on site.  An off duty cop while acting as a drunk is just a drunk, and is as susceptible to being mugged as anyone else.


----------



## Buka (Jan 21, 2016)

Crazy thread, this. Calls for a group blue hug.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 21, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Have you ever really had to defend your life? Not a bar fight or street fight but someone really tried to end your life?



They are all life or death fights.

Do you even street bro?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 21, 2016)

Buka said:


> Crazy thread, this. Calls for a group blue hug.



Everybody wants to have the monopoly on what is self defence and what isn't.

It is what makes us special.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 21, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> It would certainly help you experience and learn to control the adrenalin dump
> 
> Although it is worth bearing in mind that criminals are not skilled fighters (they are skilled at criminal violence, not consensual violence), and therefore won't attack you with the same sorts of attacks, or the in the same way.



People in mma schools were not born there. You get people who have wandered around the real world as well.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2016)

Steve said:


> Certainly, some LEOs are consistent in this.  But there are LEO (well, at least one) who muddies the waters with questions about issues of keeping people safe, or equating the skills, tactics and strategies employed by LEO in the course of their jobs as suitable for non-LEO in their efforts to protect themselves.


your arguing points that have never been made


> My point was never to suggest that cops have nothing to add to a conversation about self defense.  My point is that being a cop does not translate directly to non-cop self defense.  The two are not the same, in EXACTLY the same way that being a professional MMA fighter does not translate directly to self defense.


again I've never said that either.  I said the mental and emotional aspect of self defense is much closer to what Police, Combat Vets, people that grow up in bad areas and are constantly facing life or death violence then to an MMA fighter training for a match 



> We have seen plenty of threads around here where some people suggest that the very best training for self defense is simply to train in MMA.  We have a sub group who have argued vehemently that MMA is not self defense.  That the skills don't translate directly to self defense.  I happen to agree.
> 
> But these same people don't apply their own rationale to what they do.  But I believe that it is.


again not something anyone was arguing


> More is better, and there's a lot of overlap. But being a cop isn't a reasonable self defense course to suggest to an average person, and further, working as a cop doesn't translate to being safe as a non-cop or even being safe while off duty.


again nobody has suggested anyone should become a cop to be better at self defense 


> Quick example:  a cop while acting as a cop has a badge, a gun, a Taser, passive restraints, a radio and possibly other cops on site.  An off duty cop while acting as a drunk is just a drunk, and is as susceptible to being mugged as anyone else.


yep but the off duty officer should be better equipped mentally and emotionally to handle it.  Especially the longer they have been in the job they have been through "fight or flight" fear more times so can process and deal with it better unless they are drunker then they should be.  Which getting drunk in public isn't smart for self defense


----------



## drop bear (Jan 21, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> again I've never said that either. I said the mental and emotional aspect of self defense is much closer to what Police, Combat Vets, people that grow up in bad areas and are constantly facing life or death violence then to an MMA fighter training for a match



The same isn't it. Because they choose to be there. They can choose not to be there.

People do high risk activities without emotional trauma.

Pretty much self defence is a situation where they do not choose to be there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 21, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The same isn't it. Because they choose to be there. They can choose not to be there.
> 
> People do high risk activities without emotional trauma.
> 
> Pretty much self defence is a situation where they do not choose to be there.


I have no idea what Your Trying to say here sorry


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 25, 2016)

I think there is more agreement than disagreement in this thread. The disagreements seem to be more about semantics and personal animosities than disputing the facts. Let's see if I can lay out some framework for discussion that most of us can agree with...

1) Violence is a huge area of study. No one is or can be an expert in all it's forms. There can be huge differences in how it plays out in different contexts. There can also be commonalities that carry over from one context to another.

2) Self-defense (as a concept, not a legal term) is a huge area of study. Only a relatively small portion of it involves actual fighting.

3) In conversation regarding their practice, martial artists often use "self-defense" to describe just the subset of the greater self-defense picture that involves fighting. This is an acceptable shorthand as long as they a) don't forget about the rest of the self-defense picture and b) don't confuse fighting in general with the specific subset of fighting which might be involved in self-defense.

4) MMA competition is a particular form of violence - a consensual challenge match between two skilled, well-conditioned unarmed martial artists. As such, it has significant differences from other forms of violence, such as a police officer subduing a resisting suspect, a teenage girl fending off a date rapist, or a cavalry charge on an 18th-century battlefield. It also has some commonalities and lessons which can carry over to some other contexts including some situations of an individual fighting in self-defense. A martial artist who is concerned with the skills of fighting in self-defense is well-advised to figure out which lessons can be generalized from MMA to other contexts and which cannot.

5) The daily work of a police officer can involve dealing with violence in various forms (initiating violence, breaking up violence, defending themselves against violence initiated by another) as well as being aware of and de-escalating potential violence (which is another part of the greater self-defense picture) and dealing with the emotional and legal aftermath of violence. There are some significant differences in the experiences and optimum tactics and strategy of a police officer versus those of a civilian concerned with self-defense. There are also a ton of useful lessons that _do_ carry over to civilian self-defense (both the fighting part and the bigger picture), which is why I make every effort to learn from my LEO friends who are willing to share their knowledge.

6) The lessons which can be usefully gleaned from MMA are mostly not the same lessons which can be usefully taken from LEO experiences. Therefore, instead of arguing about which is better or tougher or more "self-defense", we might better occupy ourselves with looking at _both_ and figuring out which specific lessons from _each_ can helpfully apply to our own situation and which cannot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes self defence is a very convenient concept that way.


That's perhaps the least convenient thing about the concept, for those of us who want to prepare people for it. Students come in with widely varying expectations, and we have to help them manage those into realistic and reality-based goals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The same isn't it. Because they choose to be there. They can choose not to be there.
> 
> People do high risk activities without emotional trauma.
> 
> Pretty much self defence is a situation where they do not choose to be there.



Not entirely true. I choose to be at my home, but I don't choose the home invasion two of my family friends have experienced. A cop chooses to be on the force, but he doesn't choose to be attacked by someone with a knife.

On the whole, yes, they've made choices that put them in harm's way more often, but once the attack starts, the choice has ended for the moment. The only choice that radically differs has been discussed: I can run, the cop (though he could choose to run if deemed necessary) has a duty to stand and end the conflict before it ends badly for a civilian.

I think this boils down to whether we are talking about the overall choice of being a cop, or the individual situation where a cop is defending themself from a specific attack. The former is far from self-defense, and I think that's your point in this - a point with which I agree. The latter is pretty close to self-defense (with the previously noted caveats), and that's the point others are making, and the point I've mostly been making in this thread.

I actually don't think we have much to disagree with on this one, as far as cops go. We have simply been talking about two different areas of the question. It's the whole "blind men describing an elephant" problem.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's perhaps the least convenient thing about the concept, for those of us who want to prepare people for it. Students come in with widely varying expectations, and we have to help them manage those into realistic and reality-based goals.



There is a convenient marketing side to self defence though. In that  i can claim my style is equipped to deal with self defence and yours isn't. This is because it is such a varied and obscure concept that I can make it out to be anything I want.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Double post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is a convenient marketing side to self defence though. In that  i can claim my style is equipped to deal with self defence and yours isn't. This is because it is such a varied and obscure concept that I can make it out to be anything I want.



I can agree with that. Of course, the same could be said about competition, if the schools/styles are in different competitive arenas. If I open a Tang Soo Do school down the street from your Judo academy or MMA gym, we could easily jawjack over that and which is the better competition. As someone said in one of the other threads, the question would be, "Better for what?"

But, yes, there's far more room for interpretation hyperbole with SD-oriented schools. If I open a Judo academy down the street from your Judo academy, and we both claim to have the best training method for Judo competition, the truth would become clear shortly thereafter. Hopefully, there will be no such opportunity to evaluate the SD styles on their claims.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with that. Of course, the same could be said about competition, if the schools/styles are in different competitive arenas. If I open a Tang Soo Do school down the street from your Judo academy or MMA gym, we could easily jawjack over that and which is the better competition. As someone said in one of the other threads, the question would be, "Better for what?"
> 
> But, yes, there's far more room for interpretation hyperbole with SD-oriented schools. If I open a Judo academy down the street from your Judo academy, and we both claim to have the best training method for Judo competition, the truth would become clear shortly thereafter. Hopefully, there will be no such opportunity to evaluate the SD styles on their claims.


Drop Bear and I are agreeing on something. Quick, somebody lock this thread!


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with that. Of course, the same could be said about competition, if the schools/styles are in different competitive arenas. If I open a Tang Soo Do school down the street from your Judo academy or MMA gym, we could easily jawjack over that and which is the better competition. As someone said in one of the other threads, the question would be, "Better for what?"
> 
> But, yes, there's far more room for interpretation hyperbole with SD-oriented schools. If I open a Judo academy down the street from your Judo academy, and we both claim to have the best training method for Judo competition, the truth would become clear shortly thereafter. Hopefully, there will be no such opportunity to evaluate the SD styles on their claims.



We do that within our own club as we have competent multi stylists.

Last night we had two guys yelling wrestling and jujitsu at each other.

Either of them could eat me alive by the way.


----------



## szorn (Feb 11, 2016)

Steve said:


> Cop? Security guard?  Bouncer?  ER nurse?
> 
> Ballen suggests that the violence a cop encounters is equivalent to self defense.   I disagree.  Violence encountered as a function of your job is useful for developing some skills that also apply to self defense.  But putting yourself in harms way as a function of your job is not self defense, in the same way that being an MMA fighter is not self defense.   Comparing the skills and circumstances of a cop with someone who is not a cop is as distinct as the experiences of a guy who trains aikido and a UFC fighter.
> 
> ...



The skills and training required by law enforcement, security, military, MMA, and for civilian self-defense are all different. This is why it's never a good idea for a police officer to try to teach self-defense to civilians. Their job requires them to engage potential threats, they are always armed to include back-up weapons, and often they work in teams or have access to assistance from other officers. In the process of their job they are often required to control and contain subjects rather than disable them in order to safely escape. In short they have options that many civilians won't have when forced to protect themselves or their loved ones.

Steve


----------



## Buka (Feb 12, 2016)

szorn said:


> The skills and training required by law enforcement, security, military, MMA, and for civilian self-defense are all different. This is why it's never a good idea for a police officer to try to teach self-defense to civilians. Their job requires them to engage potential threats, they are always armed to include back-up weapons, and often they work in teams or have access to assistance from other officers. In the process of their job they are often required to control and contain subjects rather than disable them in order to safely escape. In short they have options that many civilians won't have when forced to protect themselves or their loved ones.
> 
> Steve



I understand your point, a good one, but that's not always the case. I didn't become a cop until I was in my mid thirties, had been training full time (as my profession) for fifteen years at that point, teaching civilian students and law enforcement officers. Being a cop taught me more about city, state and federal law than I had any clue even existed. The greatest benefactors were my civilian students, even more so than fellow police officers, all of whom went through academy training.

And - civilians have some options that law enforcement officers do not have. As a civilian, if I'm defending myself I can use a rear naked choke if the opportunity presents itself. If I land it - I can end the encounter with no damage to the other person. As a cop I can't do that, which is such a shame.

As a cop, those very weapons you mentioned, if they aren't being utilized in a particular situation during the arrest or control of a violent individual, can often become a liability. And they're heavy, bulky and sometimes snag on things during a tussle.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2016)

Buka said:


> I understand your point, a good one, but that's not always the case. I didn't become a cop until I was in my mid thirties, had been training full time (as my profession) for fifteen years at that point, teaching civilian students and law enforcement officers. Being a cop taught me more about city, state and federal law than I had any clue even existed. The greatest benefactors were my civilian students, even more so than fellow police officers, all of whom went through academy training.
> 
> And - civilians have some options that law enforcement officers do not have. As a civilian, if I'm defending myself I can use a rear naked choke if the opportunity presents itself. If I land it - I can end the encounter with no damage to the other person. As a cop I can't do that, which is such a shame.
> 
> As a cop, those very weapons you mentioned, if they aren't being utilized in a particular situation during the arrest or control of a violent individual, can often become a liability. And they're heavy, bulky and sometimes snag on things during a tussle.



Yeah but we are using the proffession not the person. I mean there is probably a cop out there who is a ripping hot accountant.

But you are not really going to learn accountancy off them Because they have cop on their resume.


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2016)

I agree with the other Steve for the most part but would shy away from making absolute statements using the word "never."  

The point of the thread initially was to discuss the idea that, like MMA, being a cop is not the same thing as self defense.  There is overlap in both, for sure, but some posters here apply a double standard, where on the one hand they dismiss fighting a well trained, physically fit opponent in a cage as not self defense, but somehow fighting a pcp crazed junkie on a street while armed with pepper spray, a gun, a taser, and a radio, as self defense.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

If death is on the table its "self defense". 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Feb 13, 2016)

Tgace said:


> If death is on the table its "self defense".
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


I don't know, tgace.  That's a bit simplistic, I think.   Is defensive driving self defense?  My brother was killed in a car crash a year ago next month.  I think about that a lot, but i wouldn't call it self defense.  Death, however, is on the table every time we hit the road.

Or maybe closer to what you have in mind, people have died in MMA matches, boxing matches, shoot even playing soccer.   And would it matter if the risk of death is voluntary?  If you choose the risk, such as jumping out of a plane, stepping into a cage or working as a cop, is there a meaningful difference between that and someone who isn't choosing to be in a violent encounter, such as being mugged?   I see a difference.  Am I the only one?

But maybe the question isn't really whether the experience of a cop defending against the pcp crazed junkie ballen talks about is self defense.   Let's agree that It is self defense, for the sake of discussion.  The question then is, is this experience equivalent to civilian self defense in Contrast to being an MMA fighter?  There are some here who are adamant that sport is not self defense.   Fine.   But isnt there also a similar distinction between policing and self defense, or bouncing and self defense?   further, wouldn't self defense be fundamentally different for a cop on duty or off duty?   Are the risks the same?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

If we are talking about physical self defense (fighting vs situational awareness) someone is applying violence on you out of anger, criminal intent, sexual gratification, etc. You don't know what that persons intent is or what it may become. A drunken fight between brothers can turn into a shooting or stabbing.

In sport, death is accidental and seldom part of an intentional act. You opponent isn't going to suddenly pull a knife.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

What's the difference between paintball and combat? A paintball in the eye may kill you.

Kendo vs a sword fight?

These Knight recreation sports with armor and steel swords vs actual medieval warfare?

If it's "real world", uncontrolled and anything may happen. I would call it " self defense ".

Images of Airsoft players acting as if they are the equivalent of combat veterans play through my head. 

I'm settling on some phrases that may apply. One that sort of encapsulates my thoughts......" Its more the situation than the skills or tools."

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Feb 13, 2016)

Okay. Sounds good.  So it's intent that matters.   Accidental death is not self defense,   Makes sense.  But you also bring up the weapon issue.  Is that material?  

And as I think about it, I don't know about the accidental thing.   I mean, criminals, even violent criminals, aren't always looking to kill someone.   Only a very small percentage of violent crime ends in death.   But I think we can all agree that defending against these qualifies.

Once again, to bring it back to my main point, I'm not suggesting that MMA cage fighting is self defense,   I AM questioning the common belief that working as a cop is equivalent and more applicable to civilian self defense than being a cage fighter.   There is overlap with both, but civilian self defense just isn't the same as being a cop on the street taking down a drug crazed junkie, in much the same way that stepping into a cage is not the same.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

A criminals intent to kill or not isn't really a concern from the other person's end. You simply don't know. That "possible" intent (or change in intent) is always in play.

It's not in sport.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

"Dealing with interpersonal violence outside of a controlled environment."

"Self defense is a situation. Not a technique or a system."

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

I think an average LE street encounter is more SD than an MMA match.

But that is a different issue from who has more expertise. 

A woman mugged for her purse is in more of a SD situation than an MMA fighter but that doesn't make her a SD expert either.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I think an average LE street encounter is more SD than an MMA match.
> 
> But that is a different issue from who has more expertise.
> 
> ...



Yeah. But from the other way around.

As a security guard tactically. the guys we have to get physical with are closer to a self defence situation than we are generally.

We are the ones that ambush with numbers and forewarning.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Tgace said:


> A criminals intent to kill or not isn't really a concern from the other person's end. You simply don't know. That "possible" intent (or change in intent) is always in play.
> 
> It's not in sport.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



They can only kill you if they beat you. For the most part this criminal intent is rubbish. If you are not conditioned to take punishment your intent is a very superficial advantage.

Fighting is harder in practice than it is in most peoples heads. It is like holding your breath until you pass out. You can intend to do it all you want. But to actually achieve a thing is different.

http:// lack of conditioning makes cowards of us all.

http://


----------



## Tgace (Feb 13, 2016)

You confuse the mechanics with the mentality...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Phobius (Feb 13, 2016)

drop bear said:


> They can only kill you if they beat you. For the most part this criminal intent is rubbish. If you are not conditioned to take punishment your intent is a very superficial advantage.
> 
> Fighting is harder in practice than it is in most peoples heads. It is like holding your breath until you pass out. You can intend to do it all you want. But to actually achieve a thing is different.
> 
> ...



I want to disagree. If someone intends to kill you that intention will bring them across a line you yourself dare not go. Meaning they will not surrender where most would because in their view there is no way to accept failure, while in your mind there is always the thought that even if you lose things might just work out anyway.

There is an old saying that has been proven time and time again in war, never put your enemies back up against a wall. Instead give them the option to flee and see their likelyhood of victory diminish by the second.

Morale is important not only for squads and armies but also for a single person, when morale breaks so does the will to continue fighting. Pain or no pain.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I want to disagree. If someone intends to kill you that intention will bring them across a line you yourself dare not go. Meaning they will not surrender where most would because in their view there is no way to accept failure, while in your mind there is always the thought that even if you lose things might just work out anyway.
> 
> There is an old saying that has been proven time and time again in war, never put your enemies back up against a wall. Instead give them the option to flee and see their likelyhood of victory diminish by the second.
> 
> Morale is important not only for squads and armies but also for a single person, when morale breaks so does the will to continue fighting. Pain or no pain.



There is a saying in war. "Speed surprise aggression"  designed to give the other guy no choice but to surrender Their intent to kill you breaks, their will crumbles. 

I have flogged plenty of peoples intent to kill me out of them. And I generally didn't even have to hurt them that badly. I just had to make fighting me hard.

And you can fight all sorts of hard without coming anywhere near killing someone. 

Your average kill fighter is not going to last five minutes in a cage. He dosent have the fitness. He dosent have the defence and he dosent have the will power. If all he has is intent to kill then his fighting ability is based on a house of cards.

Kill fighters are the majority predators and predators don't expend effort on their prey


----------



## Phobius (Feb 13, 2016)

I feel sorry for you if so many people wished you genuinely dead. But as long as you live to continue posting here there was a good end to it all.

Problem is that a killer does not walk into a cage to fight, and a fight on the street does not last minutes. Also a person on the street when losing will grab whatever straw possible. If they really wish to kill they might get beaten and leave but there is that constant risk you will meet them again sometime soon.

Next time is a new self defense situation with an intent to kill you only the odds are against you this time if you already shown your abilities to fight. So there is a risk we better avoid by staying in cages.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I feel sorry for you if so many people wished you genuinely dead. But as long as you live to continue posting here there was a good end to it all.
> 
> Problem is that a killer does not walk into a cage to fight, and a fight on the street does not last minutes. Also a person on the street when losing will grab whatever straw possible. If they really wish to kill they might get beaten and leave but there is that constant risk you will meet them again sometime soon.
> 
> Next time is a new self defense situation with an intent to kill you only the odds are against you this time if you already shown your abilities to fight. So there is a risk we better avoid by staying in cages.



A lot of presumptions about street fights. I thought there were no rules.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> A lot of presumptions about street fights. I thought there were no rules.



No, there are no rules. Which means there could be rules. Since otherwise the rule would state there are no rules.

You have to be prepared for anything that could be harmful to you at all times.

But from what I wrote, there was no presumptions about street fight, we were talking about killing intent. Street fights may or may not at any point in time contain a killing intent, you never know. In a cage fight you never have to worry about such a thing, or at least you never will because if you did you would not go into the ring unless they paid you a fortune. If they paid  you so much to fight you would not be on this forum writing.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2016)

Phobius said:


> No, there are no rules. Which means there could be rules. Since otherwise the rule would state there are no rules.
> 
> You have to be prepared for anything that could be harmful to you at all times.
> 
> But from what I wrote, there was no presumptions about street fight, we were talking about killing intent. Street fights may or may not at any point in time contain a killing intent, you never know. In a cage fight you never have to worry about such a thing, or at least you never will because if you did you would not go into the ring unless they paid you a fortune. If they paid  you so much to fight you would not be on this forum writing.



I did really real fights for $28 an hour. Working clubs. People get paid not much to do silly things.

No rules? No presumptions? 
What are these?

*a fight on the street does not last minutes*
*
Also a personon thestreet when losing will grab whatever straw possible

. If theyreally wish to kill they might get beaten and leave but there isthat constant risk you will meet them again sometime soon.






*


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I did really real fights for $28 an hour. Working clubs. People get paid not much to do silly things.
> 
> No rules? No presumptions?
> What are these?



Awareness of risks. Possibilities.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Awareness of risks. Possibilities.



Lol. Just possibilities. I will bear that in mind if i ever have to argue the street.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

Do that, not considering those aspects can endanger your life.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Awareness of risks. Possibilities.


Huh?  Not presumptions?  Can you explain the difference between a possibility and a presumption?   I can't tell the difference.  At the risk of being presumptuous, I think it is possible that a presumption can be a possibility.   I actually think that this is pretty typical.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2016)

Tgace said:


> What's the difference between paintball and combat? A paintball in the eye may kill you.
> 
> Kendo vs a sword fight?
> 
> ...


thanks, tgace.  I think I get it.  But once again, i wonder how relevant ltaking down and subduing a pcp crazed junkie while in tactical gear is useful for an average citizen?    

My opinion is that the situations a cop experiences while on duty are largely irrelevant to someone who is not a cop, and also mostly to a cop who is not on duty.


----------



## Steve (Feb 14, 2016)

Phobius said:


> No, there are no rules. Which means there could be rules. Since otherwise the rule would state there are no rules.
> 
> You have to be prepared for anything that could be harmful to you at all times.
> 
> But from what I wrote, there was no presumptions about street fight, we were talking about killing intent. Street fights may or may not at any point in time contain a killing intent, you never know. In a cage fight you never have to worry about such a thing, or at least you never will because if you did you would not go into the ring unless they paid you a fortune. If they paid  you so much to fight you would not be on this forum writing.


Wait.  Now a street fight is self defense? Come on, guys.  Make up your minds.   I thought it was a mutually agreed upon monkey dance, or something like that.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

Steve said:


> Huh?  Not presumptions?  Can you explain the difference between a possibility and a presumption?   I can't tell the difference.  At the risk of being presumptuous, I think it is possible that a presumption can be a possibility.   I actually think that this is pretty typical.



Actually the difference is in meaning, presumptions is based that you assume too quickly that things will be a certain way. Acknowledging possibilities is that you are aware that something could be a certain way. The first will make you blinder to other options, the second will make you ready in case things turns badly. There is definitively a difference in terms of fighting.

Make the presumption that all people will punch you in the face firstly would make you automatically cover your head, but acknoledging the risk that most people do punch in the head makes you just more aware. If you are just aware then you do not make a presumption because you do not simply assume it has to be that way.



Steve said:


> Wait.  Now a street fight is self defense? Come on, guys.  Make up your minds.   I thought it was a mutually agreed upon monkey dance, or something like that.



Any fight which does not occur in a controlled environment you need to utilize some kind of self defense. Do not make the presumption your opponent is just there to fight, he might just want to kill you or perhaps is not smart enough to stop fighting when you are lying still on the ground. Or will continue fight until his last breath, or has multiple friends around the corner... the possibilities are endless. You better be prepared for it though.

Never assume a fight in the streets against someone you do not know is not done with killing intent. It will be a shame the moment it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> I don't know, tgace.  That's a bit simplistic, I think.   Is defensive driving self defense?  My brother was killed in a car crash a year ago next month.  I think about that a lot, but i wouldn't call it self defense.  Death, however, is on the table every time we hit the road.
> 
> Or maybe closer to what you have in mind, people have died in MMA matches, boxing matches, shoot even playing soccer.   And would it matter if the risk of death is voluntary?  If you choose the risk, such as jumping out of a plane, stepping into a cage or working as a cop, is there a meaningful difference between that and someone who isn't choosing to be in a violent encounter, such as being mugged?   I see a difference.  Am I the only one?
> 
> But maybe the question isn't really whether the experience of a cop defending against the pcp crazed junkie ballen talks about is self defense.   Let's agree that It is self defense, for the sake of discussion.  The question then is, is this experience equivalent to civilian self defense in Contrast to being an MMA fighter?  There are some here who are adamant that sport is not self defense.   Fine.   But isnt there also a similar distinction between policing and self defense, or bouncing and self defense?   further, wouldn't self defense be fundamentally different for a cop on duty or off duty?   Are the risks the same?


I see your point. However, I think TGACE was referring to an attack. In principle, yes, defensive driving has many of the same elements - learning how to avoid and survive dangerous situations. With the others, obviously, we're into an area where real harm isn't (usually) intended, and the situation is more focused on winning than surviving.

I agree with the principle TGACE is putting forth. I'm sure it can be said more definitively, if someone wanted to work on the wording. The principle is pretty sound.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

Steve said:


> But maybe the question isn't really whether the experience of a cop defending against the pcp crazed junkie ballen talks about is self defense.   Let's agree that It is self defense, for the sake of discussion.  The question then is, is this experience equivalent to civilian self defense in Contrast to being an MMA fighter?  There are some here who are adamant that sport is not self defense.   Fine.   But isnt there also a similar distinction between policing and self defense, or bouncing and self defense?   further, wouldn't self defense be fundamentally different for a cop on duty or off duty?   Are the risks the same?



This is the crux of the matter (so I've replied separately). To me, it's a matter of the reality of the situation. In the ring, with very rare exceptions, if you are incapacitated, the situation ends and you are safe. Outside of sport, that's not true. It's not true for cops, bouncers, or civilians. If we get KO'd by someone, they might keep hitting until the breathing stops or their neurotransmitter flood (emotional hijacking) subsides. For me, this is the distinction between sport and self-defense, rather than focusing on the decision to not flee (the primary distinction between civilians and cops/bouncers).

So, of course, you are right. There is a distinction between those who happen into bad situations (civilians) and those who choose to stand in them (cops, fighters, and bouncers). Just as there is a distinction between those who compete to a point where a "win" is decided (KO, concession, or the match ends for other reasons) and those who have no choice but to try to survive. I find the latter distinction to be the primary point.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2016)

And we haven't even touched on the "tangential to fighting" portion of things.

I think a good cop (vs. a "just a paycheck slug") has advantages on or off duty within a familiar environment. I know what areas are prone to trouble. I'm familiar with may of the people in my area who are prone to trouble. I know the streets and the directions of the streets. I think I have a good grasp on "when" to act and when to just be a good set of eyeballs that watches and calls in help. I (hopefully) have an educated thought process regarding how to respond in situations when I'm not in a direct confrontation and the legal aspects of confrontations.

I also think that my experience as a plainclothes/undercover has given me a different set of skills vs my uniform days. I have to decide when to act vs when to watch/follow/call on a far more frequent basis.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

Tgace said:


> And we haven't even touched on the "tangential to fighting" portion of things.
> 
> I think a good cop (vs. a "just a paycheck slug") has advantages on or off duty within a familiar environment. I know what areas are prone to trouble. I'm familiar with may of the people in my area who are prone to trouble. I know the streets and the directions of the streets. I think I have a good grasp on "when" to act and when to just be a good set of eyeballs that watches and calls in help. I (hopefully) have an educated thought process regarding how to respond in situations when I'm not in a direct confrontation and the legal aspects of confrontations.
> 
> I also think that my experience as a plainclothes/undercover has given me a different set of skills vs my uniform days. I have to decide when to act vs when to watch/follow/call on a far more frequent basis.


I definitely think that a good cop - especially a "beat cop" (do those still exist?) or an undercover cop - spends more time in at least Condition Yellow than most of us, and has experience reading violence cues more often. Those are powerful tools for personal self-defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This is the crux of the matter (so I've replied separately). To me, it's a matter of the reality of the situation. In the ring, with very rare exceptions, if you are incapacitated, the situation ends and you are safe. Outside of sport, that's not true. It's not true for cops, bouncers, or civilians. If we get KO'd by someone, they might keep hitting until the breathing stops or their neurotransmitter flood (emotional hijacking) subsides. For me, this is the distinction between sport and self-defense, rather than focusing on the decision to not flee (the primary distinction between civilians and cops/bouncers).
> 
> So, of course, you are right. There is a distinction between those who happen into bad situations (civilians) and those who choose to stand in them (cops, fighters, and bouncers). Just as there is a distinction between those who compete to a point where a "win" is decided (KO, concession, or the match ends for other reasons) and those who have no choice but to try to survive. I find the latter distinction to be the primary point.



If you are incapacitated in the street the fight ends as well.  Just you then run the risk of having your head stomped in

But self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that.

I mean you could mabye create a training scenario where you develop tactics to fight on aftet both  your arms have been broken (and so would reflect a situation you would not face in the ring) but i dont really see the point.

You cant self defence well if you are focused on the risk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 15, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you are incapacitated in the street the fight ends as well.  Just you then run the risk of having your head stomped in
> 
> But self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that.
> 
> ...


"self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that"

Yes. This is the SD application of sport - I don't disagree at all. I was just drawing the distinction between the sport and the actual defense. The same distinction can be drawn between any training (simulation, competition, randori/kumite, etc.) and actual defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> "self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that"
> 
> Yes. This is the SD application of sport - I don't disagree at all. I was just drawing the distinction between the sport and the actual defense. The same distinction can be drawn between any training (simulation, competition, randori/kumite, etc.) and actual defense.



I think you need to compare methods though. I mean the likleyhood of a pro mma fighter being able to arrest someone vs a police officer winning a mma match.

Both would go to the guy who is the better fighter.

The more I see people transfer from one context to another the more basic ideas tend to win out over these specific ideas. Specific ideas build skills on a basic foundation.

Having been comfortable with a high level of risk is definitely an element but not even close to a deciding one.

People do high risk jobs that are basically incompatible with self defence. More guys have died at our local sugar mill than cops have. But they are hardly performing self defence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I think you need to compare methods though. I mean the likleyhood of a pro mma fighter being able to arrest someone vs a police officer winning a mma match.
> 
> Both would go to the guy who is the better fighter.
> 
> ...



I don't know how this got into "MMA fighters are better at..." again. Cops don't train NEARLY as much for combat as the average MMA competitor, so there's really no reason to make the comparison. You might as well say a High School guidance counselor isn't as good at public speaking as a corporate trainer.

And I'm not sure how the comment about deaths at the sugar mill has anything to do with my comment. It seems completely non sequitur.


----------



## Buka (Feb 16, 2016)

I find it odd that we complicate what fighting is, what self defense means.
Probably has to do with the whole writing things on a screen at different times from different places.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

I think that saying a cops experience gives them an advantage in "self defense" could be an accurate statement.... But that's not the same as saying a cops experience makes them a better fighter, or gives them clout in a H2H discussion.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

When it comes down to it, two people in a "fight" outside of any "rules" (where one is attacked vs mutual combat) is self-defense. Doesn't matter if they are cops or MMA fighters.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> thanks, tgace.  I think I get it.  But once again, i wonder how relevant ltaking down and subduing a pcp crazed junkie while in tactical gear is useful for an average citizen?
> 
> My opinion is that the situations a cop experiences while on duty are largely irrelevant to someone who is not a cop, and also mostly to a cop who is not on duty.



I can think of some areas of a cop's experience which could be relevant to civilian self-defense. For example ...


experience in spotting whether someone is carrying a weapon, where they are carrying it, and if they are reaching for it
experience in staying cool in an ambiguous situation that might or might not become violence, experience in spotting when the situation is about to become violent, and experience in emotionally "flipping the switch" quickly when the situation does turn violent
experience in not developing "tunnel vision" - i.e. focusing on a single adversary when there may be multiple threats
 experience in deploying a weapon under stress
I'm not saying that all cops are actually _good_ at all these skills, but I would think that they have a lot more opportunities to learn these skills from experience than most civilians.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Buka said:


> I find it odd that we complicate what fighting is, what self defense means.
> Probably has to do with the whole writing things on a screen at different times from different places.



It's a sales pitch.

In a fight a boxers fists will break.
 Bjj guy will go to the ground and be stomped.
 Tkd guy will kick high and fall over.
A 90 year old will not be able to use judo against a guy on PCP.

And this is why drop bear fu is the most applicable martial art. Not based on its own merits but because it is not one of the above methods.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know how this got into "MMA fighters are better at..." again. Cops don't train NEARLY as much for combat as the average MMA competitor, so there's really no reason to make the comparison. You might as well say a High School guidance counselor isn't as good at public speaking as a corporate trainer.
> 
> And I'm not sure how the comment about deaths at the sugar mill has anything to do with my comment. It seems completely non sequitur.



No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.

You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.
> 
> You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.



Is that sarcasm?

Industrial accidents vs the risk of getting attacked/stabbed/shot as part of the job description are two very different situations. "Most" Infantrymen (from a per capita standpoint) are not going to be killed by enemy action. But do we say a Tuna Fisherman is somehow equal to a Veteran Grunt because of their industrial accident rate?

Risk of injury doesn't make anything "closer to self-defense". Unless mill workers attack each other at a higher rate than other professions....


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Is that sarcasm?
> 
> Industrial accidents vs the risk of getting attacked/stabbed/shot as part of the job description are two very different situations. "Most" Infantrymen (from a per capita standpoint) are not going to be killed by enemy action. But do we say a Tuna Fisherman is somehow equal to a Veteran Grunt because of their industrial accident rate?
> 
> Risk of injury doesn't make anything "closer to self-defense". Unless mill workers attack each other at a higher rate than other professions....



Cool. So risk is not a deciding factor.

Glad we got that sorted out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.
> 
> You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.


Actually, I didn't compare risk on an absolute basis - that was a previous poster. I spoke to intent. To that post, your comment is quite relevant.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I didn't compare risk on an absolute basis - that was a previous poster. I spoke to intent. To that post, your comment is quite relevant.



People fight with bad intentions. Rules, No rules,police,civilians.

Your intent is one of the more common denominators.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can think of some areas of a cop's experience which could be relevant to civilian self-defense. For example ...
> 
> 
> experience in spotting whether someone is carrying a weapon, where they are carrying it, and if they are reaching for it
> ...


I have said several times that there is surely a lot of overlap.  Everything you're identifying is true (although some of it is less helpful to the average joe than others).  And everything that tgace has identified is also true.  There is surely a lot that an experienced, competent LEO can teach a person about self defense.  But when it gets down to brass tacks, a lot of what translates outside of the police realm are more theoretical soft skill... strategy and tactics. And even then, what translates is a small subset of what a cop does.

Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm interested in acknowledging those areas where being a cop does NOT intersect with civilian self defense, and ALSO to acknowledge those areas where training and competing in combat sports (specifically MMA) DOES intersect with civilian self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> I have said several times that there is surely a lot of overlap.  Everything you're identifying is true (although some of it is less helpful to the average joe than others).  And everything that tgace has identified is also true.  There is surely a lot that an experienced, competent LEO can teach a person about self defense.  But when it gets down to brass tacks, a lot of what translates outside of the police realm are more theoretical soft skill... strategy and tactics. And even then, what translates is a small subset of what a cop does.
> 
> Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm interested in acknowledging those areas where being a cop does NOT intersect with civilian self defense, and ALSO to acknowledge those areas where training and competing in combat sports (specifically MMA) DOES intersect with civilian self defense.



By the way from my experience police tend to have terrible  deescalation skills. My belief is because they can tazer people.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 16, 2016)

Police where I live do not have the ability to tazer people. Even using any weapon or tool could lead to a hearing in order to prove there was proper cause.

Do I believe the police where I live have good deescalation skills? Yes, even seen it myself. Not all cops but a lot of situations I have witnessed at least. Perhaps they do because deescalation is their goal and they had to have gained quite a bit experience in it.

A police is not different to any other, it is just that they are in a scenario where they can train and improve in what they do, and to many what they do is handle harmful and violent situations in order to live another day as well as making the world around them a bit safer.


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Police where I live do not have the ability to tazer people. Even using any weapon or tool could lead to a hearing in order to prove there was proper cause.
> 
> Do I believe the police where I live have good deescalation skills? Yes, even seen it myself. Not all cops but a lot of situations I have witnessed at least. Perhaps they do because deescalation is their goal and they had to have gained quite a bit experience in it.
> 
> A police is not different to any other, it is just that they are in a scenario where they can train and improve in what they do, and to many what they do is handle harmful and violent situations in order to live another day as well as making the world around them a bit safer.


I appreciate the note.  You and Drop Bear together illustrate the crux of it perfectly!  Just like fighting in a cage can foster some bad habits, just having access to many of the tools that a police officer has can create some very bad habits. 

I mentioned earlier that a physical altercation as a cop armed with a pistol, a Taser, hand cuffs, a radio and whatever else, is going to look nothing like a physical altercation with the average citizen (who is not named Bruce Wayne or Phoenix Jones).

Cops where you are may have very well developed de-escalation technique, and it sounds like you both intuitively agree that it's because they have to.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

When you are getting punched in the face and back up is still 5 minutes away it all starts to look the same....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 16, 2016)

*One of the biggest advantages* that law enforcement personal and anyone who works in and around that field have is that they understand the law.  They understand typically what they can and cannot do both during work and as a civilian.  This is a significant advantage over your every day citizen who may or may not have a wrong or right interpretation of what they can do to protect themselves.  That and as a violence manager they understand "violence dynamics" in real world confrontations at a much higher level then anyone involved in combat sports or plain just civilian life.  Typically they have a clearer understanding of threat indicators that occur before violence.  Plus they are usually trained very well at observing which means they will be more aware then your average citizen.  They also have solid practice in de-escalation techniques because they use them all the time.  They also understand legal ramifications surrounding violence and what can happen after a moment of personal protection occurs.

There are a lot more reasons why LEO's and people who work in the field such as corrections, loss prevention, bouncers, etc. all have a better understanding of self-defense than your average citizen but these are the ones I came up off the top of my head! 

Now, all of the above does not mean that your average citizen who trains for personal protection and actively seeks to understand the law and what they can and cannot do in a moment of violence will not be a better trained at personal protection or a better trainer.  Each person is unique after all and there are many ways to become good at understanding self-defense and violence dynamics.  A combat sport athlete who learns the law and has a solid understanding of what a citizen can and cannot do in a moment of violence.  Who also learns fundamental weapons skills like blunt, edged and firearms can be excellent in a stressful moment of violence and even a very good teacher.  *All depends on how serious one takes learning!  *They may be just fine even with just their combat sports training depending on the circumstances of their violent confrontation.  One only needs to look at the news to realize there are a lot of varying situations that make up violent situations that happen regularly!


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

I've sort of lost the original point of this thread....

It seems to me that the argument is/was "a guy getting beat/mugged for his wallet" is self defense. But a cop in this situation:






Wouldn't be in a self defense situation.

Of course, its possible the mugging victim could be a CCW with pepper spray and a knife on him/herself.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2016)

Tgace said:


> When you are getting punched in the face and back up is still 5 minutes away it all starts to look the same....
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


The same as getting punched in the face and the bell is five minutes away?


----------



## Steve (Feb 16, 2016)

Tgace said:


> I've sort of lost the original point of this thread....
> 
> It seems to me that the argument is/was "a guy getting beat/mugged for his wallet" is self defense. But a cop in this situation:
> 
> ...


I've restated and tried to clarify the point like four or five times now.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> The same as getting punched in the face and the bell is five minutes away?


There is no bell....and he may have intentional murder in mind. That's what makes it "self defense".

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Steve said:


> The same as getting punched in the face and the bell is five minutes away?


No, because the cop's attacker won't stop just because some guy in a striped shirt tells him to.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

Well. The title is "Is being a cop self defense". IMO self defense is not an issue of "being" anything. 

Self defense is...defending oneself. It's a situation. 

I would say that when it comes to physical combat, "self defense" is a situation where anyone is fighting to resist, survive or escape the illegal use of violence being applied against them.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 16, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Well. The title is "Is being a cop self defense". IMO self defense is not an issue of "being" anything.
> 
> Self defense is...defending oneself. It's a situation.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I've been thinking about that title during recent readings here. If I literally answer the title, then no. Being a cop is not self-defense - it's a job that puts the person in the line of fire for attackers, which would be counter to self-defense. I think several of us, on the other hand, are asking what we felt was being asked: Is what a cop does on his job self-defense? The answer to that, part of the time, is yes, because sometimes cops have to defend themselves against attacks.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

Tgace said:


> When you are getting punched in the face and back up is still 5 minutes away it all starts to look the same....
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Yeah but so does every other face punching.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 16, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> No, because the cop's attacker won't stop just because some guy in a striped shirt tells him to.



We are no longer factoring risk.  Apparently it is not a thing.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2016)

If we can't agree that getting your *** kicked by a guy in a ring with a ref has a significant difference from being attacked by some stranger with unknown intent on the street... than I don't know how this conversation can continue.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> If we can't agree that getting your *** kicked by a guy in a ring with a ref has a significant difference from being attacked by some stranger with unknown intent on the street... than I don't know how this conversation can continue.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Well yeah.  They are generally much easier to beat on the street.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Well yeah.  They are generally much easier to beat on the street.



And much more dangerous, can you agree on the fact that it is a lot more dangerous to beat someone on the street?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And much more dangerous, can you agree on the fact that it is a lot more dangerous to beat someone on the street?



It is more dangerous to loose to someone on the street.

Tuna fishing is more dangerous again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is more dangerous to loose to someone on the street.
> 
> Tuna fishing is more dangerous again.


Are you being purposefully obstinate, to kill discussion in this thread?


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> It is more dangerous to loose to someone on the street.
> 
> Tuna fishing is more dangerous again.



Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.

As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Equating industrial accidents to death by interpersonal violence is fallacious.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Are you being purposefully obstinate, to kill discussion in this thread?


I think everyone's being a little obstinate.  The genesis for this thread was comments made by ballen about how real self defense is taking down a pcp crazed drug addict while walking the mean streets of Baltimore.  I think that's ridiculous, and the average joe has as much of a chance of being in that situation as stepping into the Octagon. 

I'll try a different tack here to see if I can get the point across.  First, just more as a disclaimer.  Cops have a dangerous job, as do bouncers and anyone else who puts themselves into harms' way professionally.  This isn't intended to be in any way a negative thread about LEO.  It's intended to highlight a double standard that exists.

The question I continue to have is pretty well illustrated in the exchange below:



drop bear said:


> By the way from my experience police tend to have terrible  deescalation skills. My belief is because they can tazer people.





Phobius said:


> Police where I live do not have the ability to tazer people. Even using any weapon or tool could lead to a hearing in order to prove there was proper cause.
> 
> Do I believe the police where I live have good deescalation skills? Yes, even seen it myself. Not all cops but a lot of situations I have witnessed at least. Perhaps they do because deescalation is their goal and they had to have gained quite a bit experience in it.
> 
> A police is not different to any other, it is just that they are in a scenario where they can train and improve in what they do, and to many what they do is handle harmful and violent situations in order to live another day as well as making the world around them a bit safer.



Drop Bear remarks that the cops he has experienced are terrible at de-escalation, and his belief is because they don't have to de-escalate.  They have tasers, which effectively de-escalate for them.  This is along the same lines I proposed in the OP.  A cop who has a gun, a radio, a vest, maybe a trained German Shephard, a taser, or any of the other tools that a cop typically has available, does not act in any way like someone who doesn't have those things. 

Phobius responded that where he's from, they don't have tasers.  AND, so they have better de-escalation technique than those who rely on different tools.

Is the point that cops are bad at de-escalation?  No, but it illustrates that cops function within a very specific reality.  It's different from being an MMA fighter, but it's ALSO different from being other than a cop. 

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a presumption that learning combat skills in an MMA school is not self defense but arresting drug addicts is.  I think both are aspects of self defense AND both can lead to some pretty alarming biases and misconceptions about what the average joe is going to encounter.

As an analogy, I have a well established bias against people who drive Volvos.  If anyone here drives a Volvo, let me just first say that you are surely an exception to the following rule.  Volvo drivers are reckless, because they believe they can be.  That's my theory.  I've always driven small cars and was a long time driver of aircooled VWs.  I've had several bugs, a bus and a Karmann Ghia over the years.  These are not safe cars.  But I was and am a very safe driver.  I developed skills that were critical to my survival, because people (Volvo drivers) were oblivious.  I can't stop the Volvo driver from tailgating me, but I can do things to mitigate the danger.

In the same way, cops are a product of their environment.  As I've said repeatedly, there is a lot of overlap, but cops develop bad habits that are a direct result of a need to do a job that isn't self defense and the tools that they have available which aren't typically available to non-cops.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.
> 
> As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)


Take a look on the internet and you'll find that there are a LOT of statistics kept on assault and homicide.

Truly, if there are a bunch of fights where people aren't harmed, that just further illustrates the idea that people who sell self defense training are peddling an impression of safety over any actual guarantee of safety.

If you want to know what stats AREN'T available, it's anything demonstrating that martial arts or any physical self defense training ACTUALLY makes a person less likely to be a victim of assault or homocide.

There have been other programs that have focused on non-physical aspects of self defense that have been demonstrated to be effective, but those were largely dismissed by the collective here.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think everyone's being a little obstinate.  The genesis for this thread was comments made by ballen about how real self defense is taking down a pcp crazed drug addict while walking the mean streets of Baltimore.  I think that's ridiculous, and the average joe has as much of a chance of being in that situation as stepping into the Octagon.
> 
> I'll try a different tack here to see if I can get the point across.  First, just more as a disclaimer.  Cops have a dangerous job, as do bouncers and anyone else who puts themselves into harms' way professionally.  This isn't intended to be in any way a negative thread about LEO.  It's intended to highlight a double standard that exists.
> 
> ...



Who are you and what have you done with our Steve?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> Take a look on the internet and you'll find that there are a LOT of statistics kept on assault and homicide.
> 
> Truly, if there are a bunch of fights where people aren't harmed, that just further illustrates the idea that people who sell self defense training are peddling an impression of safety over any actual guarantee of safety.
> 
> ...


I didn't see much dismissal of that. I just saw people take it as a given that one aspects are important, then move on to discuss the importance and validity of physical training.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> If we can't agree that getting your *** kicked by a guy in a ring with a ref has a significant difference from being attacked by some stranger with unknown intent on the street... than I don't know how this conversation can continue.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Significant difference in the potential outcomes if you fail to effectively defend yourself in one situation versus the other? Absolutely!

Significant difference in the attributes, techniques, and tactics necessary to effectively defend yourself against a ring opponent versus necessary to defend against a street attacker? Maybe, maybe not - depending on the street situation and your normal ring tactics.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't see much dismissal of that. I just saw people take it as a given that one aspects are important, then move on to discuss the importance and validity of physical training.


I'm sorry for the confusion.  I have in mind another thread in which someone shared the findings of a training program which was specifically addressing the high incidence of sexual assault on college campuses in Canada. 

They did some research, determined the criteria by which they would measure success, developed a training program and reported their results. 

What they determined is that the key to reducing the incidence of sexual assaults, and of those assaulted, reducing the rate of successful assaults, had mostly to do with non-physical training.  While there was a physical component, it was minimal.  And yet, the program was a demonstrable success. 

There were some very interesting things going on with this program.  First, I think it's remarkable that they didn't fall into the common trap of trying to prevent homicide.  Why?  I think it's because homicide is exceedingly unlikely.  It's not the actual training need.  It's a distractor from the real need. 

Second, they didn't fall into the trap of trying to create an engine of war.  They focused on those things that would actually reduce a woman's risk of being assaulted on the campus.  Things like esteem, making good choices, avoiding excessive alcohol or drugs, not taking drinks from people you don't know, not going to parties or bars alone.  Pretty straightforward stuff. 

Third, they actually did their homework, and applied some critical thought to identifying the actual training need they were attempting to address, along with concrete metrics for determining whether or not the training program was having a positive affect. 

If I can find the thread, I'll post a link.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Significant difference in the potential outcomes if you fail to effectively defend yourself in one situation versus the other? Absolutely!
> 
> Significant difference in the attributes, techniques, and tactics necessary to effectively defend yourself against a ring opponent versus necessary to defend against a street attacker? Maybe, maybe not - depending on the street situation and your normal ring tactics.


Potential outcomes even?  I don't know...  odds are the outcome is going to be the same.  Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it.  Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies. 

I'd also suggest that it's FAR more likely that a cop will be in a life or death encounter than a non-cop.  Is that unreasonable?  It's a kind of behavioral confirmation, I believe. 

I'm pretty leery of using words like possible or potential.  Is it possible?  Sure.  Almost anything is possible.  In a world of random events, it's possible.  It's also possible that an MMA fighter will bring a shiv into the cage, tucked into his shorts.  Is that likely?  No.  It's ridiculous, and to build a self defense strategy around it would be pretty wasteful.  That's about as unlikely as me ever being in a life or death struggle with an armed, PCP crazed super junkie who's hell bent on killing me. 

It's about determining what risks are likely and what specific goals you have for your training.  It's also about using commonly understand, objective measures.


----------



## Buka (Feb 17, 2016)

oftheherd1 said:


> Who are you and what have you done with our Steve?



Yes, what have you done with our Steve? Where he be?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> Potential outcomes even? I don't know... odds are the outcome is going to be the same. Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it. Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies.


The _average_ outcome might be about the same. However I think a self-defense encounter has a wider spread of potential outcomes.

Losing in a self-defense encounter might result in no more than a bloody nose and some bruises. It might result in being raped. It might result in being curb-stomped and requiring facial surgery. it might result in brain damage. It might result in being killed.

Getting killed or permanently maimed is statistically unlikely even in a street assault, but the potential is there, it's more likely than in an MMA match, and it's significant enough to take seriously. Even a 0.5% chance of that sort of outcome is enough for me to take it into consideration.*

*(Taking it into consideration doesn't mean I think every fight has to be a kill-or-be-killed excuse for destroying an assailant. It means I prefer to play it safe both in avoiding potential fights and in handling them once they've started. Sometimes in the cage it may be a worthwhile gamble to try a high-risk high-reward technique. On the street the potential losses are higher and so I would avoid those kinds of gambles.)


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The _average_ outcome might be about the same. However I think a self-defense encounter has a wider spread of potential outcomes.
> 
> Losing in a self-defense encounter might result in no more than a bloody nose and some bruises. It might result in being raped. It might result in being curb-stomped and requiring facial surgery. it might result in brain damage. It might result in being killed.
> 
> ...


Sure if we are looking at the entire universe of possible outcomes for any physical altercation.  But if you're opening it up to such a wide array of scenarios, most of which have nothing to do with any other, why not also include combat sports?  I mean, at this point, given the lack of identifiable parameters, isn't the choice to distinguish between any physical altercation kind of arbitrary?

Don't get me wrong.  Take seriously whatever you'd like.  But two things to consider.  First, you say .5%... is that a real standard you have?  What about something that is .05% likely (or even .005%)?  Because, we don't know what the actual odds are.   Second, and this is a big one for me, what if attention on that .5% chance of something actually distracts you from addressing something that is 5% likely, 25% likely or more?   In the example of the training program put together in Canada to address sexual assault, some in that thread suggested that the training would be more effective if there was more physical self defense training in it.   What if that isn't the case?

And please don't misunderstand.  I mean it when I say that if it's serious to you, then it's serious.  Train what makes sense for you.  But, what makes sense?  How much time should be spent preparing for something that is exceedingly unlikely to occur?

If I'm interested in being safer, how much time should I spend on my defense against someone who is on PCP?  How would I even go about doing that?  And is that really where I'm going to see a return?  Am I actually safer at all?

Edit:  Just to return to my aircooled VW analogy (because I do like those old cars).  I drove in a way that made me safe.  But there's no way I can predict when someone will drive across three lanes of traffic on the freeway, and collide with me.  My brother died in a car accident like this almost one year ago.  He was driven under the trailer of a semi and killed.  No amount of technique and not even driving a Volvo would have saved him.  It was very sad.  Still is.  I miss him very much.  But to the point, there are things we can do to make ourselves safer, and the rest we just have to accept as risk.

You say .5% chance is still worth it to you.  Great.  That's up to you.  But there's a point where you just accept that life is risky.  Is it POSSIBLE that I'll be attacked?  Yes.   Sure.  It's possible.  Is it probable?  No.  It is, in fact, exceedingly unlikely.  And I can do things to improve my chances of not being assaulted, most of which do not involve training martial arts.  And even those benefits of martial arts training are more about being physically fit and confident.

Also, more to the point of this thread, the decision about which situations to try and improve is often arbitrary.  It's often whatever you're being sold.  Training to defend against a drug crazed junkie isn't the same as defending against a rapist or a mugger or a trained Mixed Martial Artist who's in between you and a title shot.  Improving your safety while attending college is different than at work in an office building, which is different from being the night clerk at a 7-Eleven.  So, when I hear these judgments about the usefulness of one paradigm over another, it seems pretty darned shallow to me.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Are you being purposefully obstinate, to kill discussion in this thread?



Lolcakes.

Think about all the rationalisations you have to make to support your point.

So this guy on the street has to engage in violence. Has to be pretty good at it. Has to do it when the cop has no back up. The cop can't access his gun, tazer, baton. The cop has no chance to escape. The guy wants to kill the cop rather than escape arrest.

Have I missed any conditions to make your theory work?

Because if we are discussing risk. All of these conditions minimise that risk. A police office actually engaging in self defence is about as likley as me engaging in self defence.

This is why your average cop is not training his guts out for a life or death fight.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually the most dangerous thing you can do, is to live. It assures you will die.
> 
> As for your comment it is actually just bull, you have no statistics to prove tuna fishing is more dangerous than beating someone on the street. Because there is none that has gathered how many have fought on the streets vs how many have been harmed. (Or defend yourself against harm is not for you?)



Tuna fishing vs police work.

Tuna fishing has the most risk so therefore it is more like self defence.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Equating industrial accidents to death by interpersonal violence is fallacious.



Why? The defining factor was risk. If we say. OK risk is not a factor. Then we can compare similarly of interpersonal violence.

So far risk is another convenient shifting goal post. We use it when we want and discount it when we want.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Fallacious. Any definition of self-defense would imply it means defense against interpersonal violence...not industrial accidents. That's Workplace Safety.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Tuna fishing vs police work.
> 
> Tuna fishing has the most risk so therefore it is more like self defence.


Now that's just silly.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> Potential outcomes even?  I don't know...  odds are the outcome is going to be the same.  Someone's going to be pretty beat up at the end of it.  Chances are likely that, even at the end of a no-rules street fight, someone's going to be beat up and no one dies.
> 
> I'd also suggest that it's FAR more likely that a cop will be in a life or death encounter than a non-cop.  Is that unreasonable?  It's a kind of behavioral confirmation, I believe.
> 
> ...



That was going to be my next point. If we say worst case scenario.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Now that's just silly.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Correct because risk is not really a factor.

Oh wait now it is.

Now it isn't.

Pick one.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.

What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.

Sport fighting with all sorts of rules and controls is still fighting. But it's not self-defense. 

Someone outside of any controls/rules where a reasonable person believes their life or serious physical injury is in the offing is in a self-defense situation.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.
> 
> What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.
> 
> ...



Police engage in self defence about as much as mma fighters.

Police arrest people. That is use of force but not self defence. 
Arresting people with all sorts of rules and controls is fighting but not self defence.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Arresting someone and wrestling them into cuffs and being beaten by an offender who is trying to take your gun are two different situations.

MMA competitors are engaging in sport. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Thats like saying that someone who takes a paintball to the eye and dies is somehow equivalent to an infantryman being killed by enemy fire.
> 
> What don't you understand. It's the risk of death due to the intentional use of force against another person we are talking about. Industrial accidents are a fallacious red herring.
> 
> ...


Just speaking for myself, it's not about equivalency.  In fact, it's the opposite.  Taking a paintball to the eye is a risk for someone who does that, but not a risk for someone who does not.  And it's not at all equivalent to an infantryman who is in a combat zone.  Which also isn't anything like a street level narcotics detective in Baltimore, MD.  And that isn't anything like what me, a middle class, middle aged, Caucasian schlub will run into.

Conflating some of these things but not others is what makes no sense.  There are always controls and rules.  Some are more overt than others.  And some risks are likely and others are not, and what is likely is relative to who you are and where you are.  It's the tornado analogy.  I live in Washington State.  Preparing for a tornado makes no sense, but I have an earthquake kit, because the risk of one is non-existent, but the risk of the other is real.

And just to be clear, I said pages ago that I'm happy to agree for the sake of discussion that policing is self defense, in the hopes of moving beyond the posts above.  I think the larger discussion is lost in the weeds of arbitrary distinction between sport, where there is violence and combat, and literally EVERYTHING ELSE in the known world that involves actual violence, potential violence, the threat of violence (real or imagined), defense in non-violent situations and any training that isn't sport, that addresses violence or soft skills that might possibly, maybe relate in some way to a violent encounter.  And this includes literally every other possible context, from professional risk to personal risk, from non-lethal violence to homicide and everything in between.

As I said above, given this, what sense does it make to exclude anything at this point?  Why not include self defense for surfers, who on exceedingly rare occasions find themselves attacked by sharks?  It happens... maybe even .05% of the time.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Actually Steve I would disagree with saying that "policing is self-defense". I would say that a cop can find him/herself is a self-defense situation.

Me pushing someone down and wrangling them into cuffs? Not self-defense. 

Some guy ambushing me with a hatchet out of the blue as what happened in NYC? Self-Defense. Having a gun, OC, etc. doesn't really change that I'm defending myself from a braining. You could easily be armed with a gun, OC, cuffs too depending on your State laws.

Actually I think you and I are on pretty much the same page. Just being a Cop doesn't confer any sort of expertise in SD. Hell I know a few cops who's only use is issuing tickets and delivering court paperwork.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

> And it's not at all equivalent to an infantryman who is in a combat zone. Which also isn't anything like a street level narcotics detective in Baltimore, MD. And that isn't anything like what me, a middle class, middle aged, Caucasian schlub will run into.



Certainly not. I agree. 

But they (IMO) could ALL still be called self-defense depending on what situation we are discussing.


----------



## Steve (Feb 17, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Actually I think you and I are on pretty much the same page. Just being a Cop doesn't confer any sort of expertise in SD. Hell I know a few cops who's only use is issuing tickets and delivering court paperwork.


I think we usually are pretty close to the same page.  I believe it's because, much as I, you are a very reasonable person.  I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2016)

Steve said:


> I think we usually are pretty close to the same page.  I believe it's because, much as I, you are a very reasonable person.  I could be wrong, though.


About yourself or me? 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> If I can find the thread, I'll post a link.


Please do. This would be great to discuss during classes and seminars. I have long believed that the real success of MA training is the list of secondary effects (confidence, etc.). I would expound on the thought more,but I don't want to hijack the thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 18, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Why? The defining factor was risk. If we say. OK risk is not a factor. Then we can compare similarly of interpersonal violence.
> 
> So far risk is another convenient shifting goal post. We use it when we want and discount it when we want.


You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs). 

Feel better now?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 18, 2016)

Steve said:


> Don't get me wrong. Take seriously whatever you'd like. But two things to consider. First, you say .5%... is that a real standard you have? What about something that is .05% likely (or even .005%)? Because, we don't know what the actual odds are. Second, and this is a big one for me, what if attention on that .5% chance of something actually distracts you from addressing something that is 5% likely, 25% likely or more? In the example of the training program put together in Canada to address sexual assault, some in that thread suggested that the training would be more effective if there was more physical self defense training in it. What if that isn't the case?
> 
> And please don't misunderstand. I mean it when I say that if it's serious to you, then it's serious. Train what makes sense for you. But, what makes sense? How much time should be spent preparing for something that is exceedingly unlikely to occur?


I think we are on the same page in agreeing that the amount of time we (as dedicated martial artists) spend training is completely out of proportion to the likelihood of most of us ever having to use it in a life-or-death situation. As you've said in previous threads, we can get more "bang for the buck" self-protection-wise with lifestyle choices, interpersonal skills, running track, etc, etc. Those of us who dedicate a significant portion of our lives to martial arts training and don't have a profession which involves regular exposure to violence are doing it because we love the art.

That said, I subscribe to the philosophy of "first do no harm." If I am teaching someone an art in the context of it being useful for self-defense, I don't want to introduce habits that would be counter-productive and possibly get them hurt if they ever do have to apply those skills to defend against a real assault.  There are lots of skills and attributes that carry over usefully from sport to street settings, but there are important differences in the applicable tactics. I try to make sure my students understand the appropriate self-defense applications before they get too caught up in preparing for competition.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs).
> 
> Feel better now?



A good definition of self defense. There is a legal definition but I cant seem to find it however a more complex way to say it...

1.
the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant:
the art of self-defense.
2.
a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack:
He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3.
an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

Putting on sun lotion or working at a tuna factory but requesting better safety is not self defense. Self preservation and other terms but still not self defense.


----------



## Steve (Feb 18, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Please do. This would be great to discuss during classes and seminars. I have long believed that the real success of MA training is the list of secondary effects (confidence, etc.). I would expound on the thought more,but I don't want to hijack the thread.


here's a link to the report. 

MMS: Error


----------



## drop bear (Feb 19, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are grossly (and purposely) over-generalizing terms. So let's go with that plan. ANYTHING that reduces your risk of injury or death falls under your new definition of self-defense. So now wearing sunscreen, putting on shoes, and going to the dentist are self-defense. So is not leaving your house, and avoiding hospitals (germs).
> 
> Feel better now?



Yes.  Because if we worked in specifics. Then you deliberately cherry pick self defence into what you consider important.

I dont really like this nebulous self defence concept anyway. We all just try to fight for ownership of a very vague term.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes.  Because if we worked in specifics. Then you deliberately cherry pick self defence into what you consider important.
> 
> I dont really like this nebulous self defence concept anyway. We all just try to fight for ownership of a very vague term.



Just to add, it is a legal term and very well defined. (although quite vague in terms of rights to defend property or ideas)

You are trying to change the term but no judge would grant you such a wish.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 20, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just to add, it is a legal term and very well defined. (although quite vague in terms of rights to defend property or ideas)
> 
> You are trying to change the term but no judge would grant you such a wish.



As a legal term.  Self defence is fighting.  It is a defence against assault.

This means if you have used awareness and deescalation to avoid a fight you are not doing self defence. Changing the term to suit the argument is a pretty consistent theme.

A cop when he uses force rarely does it under the umbrella of self defence. In general he is making an arrest.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2016)

Why Officer Darren Wilson wasn't indicted

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2016)

Police: officer shoots suspect in self-defense, suspect in critical condition

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Feb 21, 2016)

In my state self defense is defined as:

_S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person,_

If I'm arresting someone for say...driving with their license suspended for failure to pay a traffic ticket...I have no right to use force on them initially. If they refuse to be co-operative I can use force to make the arrest. I can force them to the ground, pepper spray them etc. If they are just being resistive and not attacking me per se. I would not call it self defense.

If however, the person pulls a knife on me and attacks to prevent arrest. I have the legal right to SELF DEFENSE to defend myself from bodily injury...like anyone else. That force is not being used to effect the arrest at that point. It's being used to defend my life.

I am subject to the exact same law as anyone else. The ONLY legal difference I have from anyone else in this situation (regarding the use of force) is that if the person displays a knife but doesn't attack I have no "duty to retreat". I can still remain and use force (maybe not necessarily deadly force) to resolve the situation.


Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tonita Rervant (Feb 24, 2016)

Answer vary from time to time. Violence is not a good answer. But on the other hand, it is a good last solution. But if you see videos on internet, most of them are showing the cruel behavior. 

I personally feels that people are responsible for their behavior. And try to cross the line between perfect confrontation and violence.


----------



## Whitespace (Feb 24, 2016)

Personally I think being a cop is not self defense but rather doing your duty and when violence comes protecting yourself AND others.


----------



## Buka (Feb 24, 2016)

I didn't really understand this thread, or think about it much, until the other day. Went to the store about eight at night, preoccupied by some nonsense or another, not really paying attention to anything going on around me. Nothing happened - but I suddenly realized that I wasn't paying attention. I had one of those hmmm moments. Started thinking about it and realized I don't pay much attention to my surroundings anymore. I know, I know, bad self defense, recipe for disaster, yadda yadda.

I realized I've been pretty much this way since I left Law Enforcement. Back then I always carried, always had my badge, always looked out for other people, my eyes always scanning, my radar always tuned up high and sharp. Now, I tend to just mosey along. I really like moseying along, by the way. But I'm more apt to miss indicators, especially involving somebody else. I'm older now, and look it. People don't even look at old people, unless they're targeting them. And you can feel that, the vibe is always there, the setup is there, the pantomime of the bad guy is always there, and I have experienced instincts. I don't worry about that score, but I'm liable to miss _other people_ getting set up, stalked, watched or whatever.

And then I thought, maybe Steve has something there in that thread. Maybe being a cop is part of self defense. I dunno', just saying. Anyway, I think I'll go mosey some more. Good day for moseying.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 27, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> A bullet to a cops chest is the same as a bullet to a crossing guard.



Crossing guards generally don't wear body armor.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 27, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> Crossing guards generally don't wear body armor.


and?  How about bullet to the head would that help you understand the point


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> and?  How about bullet to the head would that help you understand the point


How often do crossing guards get executed in your neck of the woods?  I can't recall one incident in the Seattle area ever.  in the land of make believe, where crossing guards are routinely murdered, your point might make a little sense.   Otherwise, not so much.

Edit: looking around the interweb a bit, I think self defense for a crossing guard has more to do with death by getting struck by a car.  It's a little alarming how often they are killed by careless drivers.   Couldn't find any who were shot.   If there are any, it appears to be very rare.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> How often do crossing guards get executed in your neck of the woods?  I can't recall one incident in the Seattle area ever.  in the land of make believe, where crossing guards are routinely murdered, your point might make a little sense.   Otherwise, not so much.
> 
> Edit: looking around the interweb a bit, I think self defense for a crossing guard has more to do with death by getting struck by a car.  It's a little alarming how often they are killed by careless drivers.   Couldn't find any who were shot.   If there are any, it appears to be very rare.


and? What's any of that have to do with the topic?   Dead is dead regardless of your job


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 28, 2016)

Dead is funny to you Steve?


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Dead is funny to you Steve?


Real dead or make believe?   Make believe dead is funny sometimes.  Depends on the context.  

Sometimes I think you're being funny on purpose.  Sometimes not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> Real dead or make believe?   Make believe dead is funny sometimes.  Depends on the context.
> 
> Sometimes I think you're being funny on purpose.  Sometimes not.


and your trolling on purpose because that's what you do


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> and your trolling on purpose because that's what you do


Says the pot to the kettle.   Responding to stupid statements isn't trolling.  Making stupid statements might be.  It's genuinely hard to tell if you are doing it on purpose or not.  

You're trying to equate being a cop to being a crossing guard.  That is a stupid assertion.  I would wager that crossing guards are at a significantly lower risk for being shot than the general public.   Much less cops.  

Is your stupid assertion trolling?   Well that depends.  Are you making stupid statements on purpose or because you are genuinely that unaware?


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 28, 2016)

Steve said:


> Says the pot to the kettle.   Responding to stupid statements isn't trolling.  Making stupid statements might be.  It's genuinely hard to tell if you are doing it on purpose or not.
> 
> You're trying to equate being a cop to being a crossing guard
> 
> ...


Awww poor Steve getting so upset he's now calling people stupid.  Get a life little fella


----------



## Steve (Feb 28, 2016)

ballen0351 said:


> Awww poor Steve getting so upset he's now calling people stupid.  Get a life little fella


Not you.  I don't know you.  Your post, though.  That's some stupidity.  As I said, I don't know if it's intentional or not.   i go back and forth.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 28, 2016)

Attention All Users

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.   Skip the personal shots and debate the issue.

Jks9199@gmail.com
Admin

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotonGuy (Feb 29, 2016)

I think what ballen0351 is saying is that it doesn't matter what your job is, dead is dead. If you're on the receiving end of something that's deadly whether its in the line of work or not, it will kill you. It doesn't matter what a person's occupation is if they get killed they're dead and one occupation doesn't make you any more dead than another occupation because dead is dead. There aren't different levels of being dead there's just dead and thats it.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 29, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I think what ballen0351 is saying is that it doesn't matter what your job is, dead is dead. If you're on the receiving end of something that's deadly whether its in the line of work or not, it will kill you. It doesn't matter what a person's occupation is if they get killed they're dead and one occupation doesn't make you any more dead than another occupation because dead is dead. There aren't different levels of being dead there's just dead and thats it.



And defending yourself is defending yourself. Sure a cop may have some tools available that others don't at times. But even then... there are many places where anyone could have a CCW, OC spray, etc on them. 

The differences between a LEO defending him/herself and anyone else in a SD situation only varies if the details are known. 

Getting into a gunfight while executing a warrant is not the same as being ambushed while sitting in your car. 

Most law-abiding people won't be in a forcible entry situation. However, the immediate situation of a cop being ambushed in his car is materially no different from a non-LEO CCW carrier in a carjacking attempt. When the bullets start flying at least.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 29, 2016)

Just to continue the discussion.

If "self defense" for a cop is different from self-defense for a soccer-mom....isn't SD for the soccer-mom different from that of a 7-11 cashier? Isn't the cashier's different from an office worker in a Bank? From a politician? From a UPS driver? Etc? Etc?

We don't claim that every person needs a different "school of self-defense" do we? 

Certainly they all have different requirements but are we asking "Is being a 7/11 cashier self-defense" here too?


----------



## Steve (Feb 29, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I think what ballen0351 is saying is that it doesn't matter what your job is, dead is dead. If you're on the receiving end of something that's deadly whether its in the line of work or not, it will kill you. It doesn't matter what a person's occupation is if they get killed they're dead and one occupation doesn't make you any more dead than another occupation because dead is dead. There aren't different levels of being dead there's just dead and thats it.


Absolutely.  What he was getting at is clear. 

The thing is, there's a point where you are either paranoid or fear mongering.  Depends upon which side of the sales desk you're sitting. 
If you're selling the idea that crossing guards are at risk for execution, you're way off base.  It's the difference between make believe, fiction writing, and an adult discussion about what happens in the real world.

Said another way, this is what is called a red herring.  If you are a crossing guard and are interested in self defense, preparing for something that literally never happens can actually distract you from preparing for something that might actually happen.  



Tgace said:


> Just to continue the discussion.
> 
> If "self defense" for a cop is different from self-defense for a soccer-mom....isn't SD for the soccer-mom different from that of a 7-11 cashier? Isn't the cashier's different from an office worker in a Bank? From a politician? From a UPS driver? Etc? Etc?
> 
> ...


School for self defense?  Probably not.  Certainly, there is a lot of overlap, but there are a few things I believe to be true.

1:  That physical self defense strategies and techniques are generally contextual.  It is not "One Size Fits All" or even fits most. 

2:  Self defense is far more than physical skills and techniques. 

2:  In many contexts, physical self defense skill is not the most important self defense skill.  In other words, knowing how to fight or disarm a bad guy or kick a guy in the groin is often not the most important area of study.  In some cases, it's entirely unnecessary.

3:  When the physical skills are not the most important elements of self defense, the amount of time spent learning them often distorts the perception of how critical they are.  This is the red herring effect, and is common in training. 

4:  For self defense to actually help anyone, it could really benefit from a more scientific approach that targets specific metrics, similar to the program developed for the female students at the universities in Canada.  That training would not be much help for a crossing guard, but it had a measurable effect for the intended audience.

So, all that to say, different schools?  No.  Different programs?  Yeah.  I think so.  Teaching different things.  A soccer mom doesn't need to know what to do when the junkie comes in at 1am and wants all the cash out of the safe, or how to mitigate risk when confronting a shoplifter (or even whether to confront the shoplifter). 

Soccer mom might need some help with road rage, home invasion or possibly how to de-escalate an encounter on the sideline of a playoff game when the other team's out of control soccer moms go nuts because your kid totally clowned their star player for the game winning goal.


----------



## Steve (Feb 29, 2016)

Tgace said:


> Just to continue the discussion.
> 
> Certainly they all have different requirements but are we asking "Is being a 7/11 cashier self-defense" here too?


Tgace, I didn't specifically comment on this last question.  We don't ask whether being a 7/11 cashier is self defense, because we don't have people on this forum suggesting that what they do equates to anything else.  We do have at least one guy who wants to equate what he does with just about everything, which was the genesis of the thread.

Taking this a little further, would a 7/11 cashier be a credible source for self defense instruction?  Probably has more practical experience than most....


----------



## Tgace (Feb 29, 2016)

Steve said:


> Tgace, I didn't specifically comment on this last question.  We don't ask whether being a 7/11 cashier is self defense, because we don't have people on this forum suggesting that what they do equates to anything else.  We do have at least one guy who wants to equate what he does with just about everything, which was the genesis of the thread.
> 
> Taking this a little further, would a 7/11 cashier be a credible source for self defense instruction?  Probably has more practical experience than most....



The thing "being a cop" has going for it is that it's a cops job to "deal with people" in physical confrontations and work with H2H techniques, weapons, de-escalation techniques, etc. (where a 7/11 employee is more likely to be a victim of crime).

SOME Cops actually attend schools specifically focused on crime prevention and personal security for community policing and citizen awareness events.

All that being said. I can see how SOME cops can have more clout in teaching SD (vs. unarmed fighting techniques) than a martial arts instructor who may have more experience in unarmed fighting but not so much on the other "non-fighting" topics.

Of course none of this means I'm making a blanket statement about the profession in general having any specific clout.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 29, 2016)

PhotonGuy said:


> I think what ballen0351 is saying is that it doesn't matter what your job is, dead is dead. If you're on the receiving end of something that's deadly whether its in the line of work or not, it will kill you. It doesn't matter what a person's occupation is if they get killed they're dead and one occupation doesn't make you any more dead than another occupation because dead is dead. There aren't different levels of being dead there's just dead and thats it.


Steve knows what I ment he's just trolling.  That's all he does lately


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 29, 2016)

Steve said:


> Absolutely.  What he was getting at is clear.
> 
> The thing is, there's a point where you are either paranoid or fear mongering.  Depends upon which side of the sales desk you're sitting.
> If you're selling the idea that crossing guards are at risk for execution, you're way off base.  It's the difference between make believe, fiction writing, and an adult discussion about what happens in the real world.
> ...


the part where you fail is you seem to think a crossing guard is a crossing guard 24/7.  You do understand they get time off and may be they average citizen on the street that's confronted by a group of teens looking for a fight, or they may be home and become a victim of a home invasion.  A police officer goes off duty and can be confronted out of uniform without the took belt.  We just had an off duty officer here become the victim of an attempted carjacking.  The bad guy picked the wrong car and died for his effort when the officer defended himself and shot the suspect.  You keep mixing jobs with people.  I work as a cop but I'm not only a cop, I have a life outside my job.  A crossing guard is a job but they have a life outside of work.  To say they only need to worry about getting hit by a car during the 3 hours a day they work leaves them vulnerable during the other 21 hours.  But again you know all that your just being you


----------



## Steve (Feb 29, 2016)

Tgace said:


> The thing "being a cop" has going for it is that it's a cops job to "deal with people" in physical confrontations and work with H2H techniques, weapons, de-escalation techniques, etc. (where a 7/11 employee is more likely to be a victim of crime).
> 
> SOME Cops actually attend schools specifically focused on crime prevention and personal security for community policing and citizen awareness events.
> 
> ...


Tgace, totally agree but think there's an important distinction to make between who is credible to teach and what is being taught.   I'm specifically thinking about the latter.  

I completely agree that some cops would be excellent instructors in many different types of self defense training, whether to cops or non-cops.  What I'm suggesting is, in the context of the crossing guard, a cop might be an excellent choice to teach a class.  However, no matter how good the instructor is, if he is teaching a crossing guard to defend against being shot while "on duty," the instruction will be functionally useless.  It's just not a realistic danger in that context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yes.  Because if we worked in specifics. Then you deliberately cherry pick self defence into what you consider important.
> 
> I dont really like this nebulous self defence concept anyway. We all just try to fight for ownership of a very vague term.


Show me one instance where I "cherry picked" into what I consider important.


----------

