# A curious outlook on self-defense learning



## Midnight-shadow (Jul 30, 2016)

I'm wondering what people think about the view expressed in this video. In a way I can see where they are coming from in the fact that someone who gets into a lot of fights probably isn't the right person to learn from, but at the same time you want someone with some experience in an actual fight. What I will say is there is a big difference between street fighting and self defense. In street fighting you are wanting to win by beating up your opponent, whereas in self defense you are looking to escape the situation with the minimal amount of injury and risk to yourself. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2016)

Most street fighters will tell you it is a pretty crap exercise as well.

But it is a crap exercise that sometimes needs to be done. 

As far as street fighting and self defence you can be switching from one to the other pretty quickly or even doing both at once. So it helps to have both tools.

Even avoiding a fight. It helps your ability to use deescalation when you can take the guy should it come to that. Fast talking while you are scared you are about to get beat up is actually pretty hard.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 30, 2016)

lol  and I thought I was bad with the lectures... is that what I sound like to other people? lol  Jake is entertaining but he makes a valid points. I'm not a fan of the Zen aspect of Martial Arts.  I like martial arts specifically because it's a fighting system that teaches me how to efficiently hurt someone. If I have be in a fight that I can't avoid then I want to end it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.  Being a healthy lifestyle, staying fit, and stress free are "side effects" or additional benefits that come from training.  When I train kung fu I train to hurt someone and I want to be good at it.  Being good at hurting someone doesn't mean that I'm a tyrant walking down the street to cause misery.  It's quite the opposite.

The better and more efficient I get at being able to hurt people the less I actually want to hurt someone and the more fighting becomes an option than a requirement.  My growth and maturity comes from what I decide to do with my ability to hurt someone.  I can choose to use my "power" to harm or I can use my "power" to help.  

The funny thing about learning how to fight, almost all teachers want you to take the emotion out of fighting and learn how to not fight with anger or fear.  I didn't think about it until now but if you have the ability to fight without anger or fear then you probably won't get into many fights at all, being that anger and fear are good triggers for getting into fights.


----------



## crazydiamond (Jul 30, 2016)

I do agree with the video with sparing being important and sparing in different styles important. We do some sparing using different styles. We also occasionally simulate (kind krav like) street or compact situations. To me bring some chaos, unpredictability and fear help you prepare.

Sometimes self defense does involve "beating up" someone to remove them as a threat. Perhaps the difference that a street fight my deliver a beating beyond being no threat - that is in a self dense mode if your knock them down or hurt them enough to stop their attack on you - you don't keep hurting them. Street fights involving rage can go beyond that.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Jul 30, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I'm wondering what people think about the view expressed in this video. In a way I can see where they are coming from in the fact that someone who gets into a lot of fights probably isn't the right person to learn from, but at the same time you want someone with some experience in an actual fight. What I will say is there is a big difference between street fighting and self defense. In street fighting you are wanting to win by beating up your opponent, whereas in self defense you are looking to escape the situation with the minimal amount of injury and risk to yourself.
> 
> What do you guys think?


First, IMO a "street fight" just means 'an actual, real-world fight between hostiles which may or may not involve weapons and may or may not be consensual and is NOT for sport or entertainment and is NOT governed by rules, nor does it have referees or official oversight'.
Secondly, "self defense" just means 'protecting oneself or others from physical harm from hostiles by use of physical and/or non-physical means.' Self defense includes situational awareness, learning to read body language and facial expressions, and learning how to negotiate.

With that in mind, an experienced street fighter might be a very good person to learn fighting skills from. A person who loves to fight and has been in many avoidable fights might not be the best person to learn self defense from.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol  and I thought I was bad with the lectures... is that what I sound like to other people? lol  Jake is entertaining but he makes a valid points. I'm not a fan of the Zen aspect of Martial Arts.  I like martial arts specifically because it's a fighting system that teaches me how to efficiently hurt someone. If I have be in a fight that I can't avoid then I want to end it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.  Being a healthy lifestyle, staying fit, and stress free are "side effects" or additional benefits that come from training.  When I train kung fu I train to hurt someone and I want to be good at it.  Being good at hurting someone doesn't mean that I'm a tyrant walking down the street to cause misery.  It's quite the opposite.
> 
> The better and more efficient I get at being able to hurt people the less I actually want to hurt someone and the more fighting becomes an option than a requirement.  My growth and maturity comes from what I decide to do with my ability to hurt someone.  I can choose to use my "power" to harm or I can use my "power" to help.
> 
> The funny thing about learning how to fight, almost all teachers want you to take the emotion out of fighting and learn how to not fight with anger or fear.  I didn't think about it until now but if you have the ability to fight without anger or fear then you probably won't get into many fights at all, being that anger and fear are good triggers for getting into fights.



The thing is you can't really train angry because you will just get demolished. There are elements of training that are hard and are upsetting and it takes mental composure to deal with that. 

Basically if someone has you in mount and are punching you in the face.  They are not going to let you out just because you are having a sook.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 30, 2016)

By the way.  Street fighters may not be the best people to have dinner time conversations with.  But if you are in a fight.  You would like the fact that any guy backing you up wants to be there.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 31, 2016)

my first thought is...what is your and Jake's definition of a street fighter and who is learning from a street fighter? i will admit i didnt watch more than half of the video (oral diarrhea drives me insane).  to me a street fighter implies someone without any training or skill but engages in a street fights and thus thinks hes a bad *** and declares himself to be a street fighter for the sake of ego and to hide his insecurities.   it is possible that Jake Mace is referring to back yard fighters like Kimbo and Dada 5000 but i dont think so.  the entire premise is ludicrous.  street fighters as far as i know dont teach.."street fighting" and those that do i will assume are fake.  no one is going to learn street fighting like this because there is no system or curriculum to be learnt. 
i believe the entire video is a false premise that Jake made up in order to battle his youtube back lash from people saying what he is doing and teaching is nonsense for self defense.  so he uses the stance that "dont learn from a street fighter ,,,learn from me , a qualified and experienced martial arts instructor"   the video reeks of insecurity of actual fighting ability on Jakes part.
Jake did say "if you are getting into more than one or two street fights in your life time there is something wrong"   while this may be true it sounds like he has been reading or watching Rory Miller on youtube.  its Rory that says that a lot, someone with actual credentials.



Midnight-shadow said:


> What I will say is there is a big difference between street fighting and self defense. In street fighting you are wanting to win by beating up your opponent, whereas in self defense you are looking to escape the situation with the minimal amount of injury and risk to yourself.


   agreed.

  just watched more of the video and i think i threw up in my mouth just a little.
4:05 to 4:44 ( you should be training chinese kung fu and tai chi to have a better relationship. to get in better shape. to be more relaxed and productive at work. to be a better parent to your kids. to have goals. maybe you have goals and kung fu and tai chi is one of the ways that will enable you to achive your goals......i think that kung fu and tai chi... is one of the mechanisms and one of the tools we can all use to enhance our level of humanity)  

ok Jake you've given your opinion,,now here is one of mine..



 
*oh geezus listen to the ding bat here.*
Jake you posted a video on street fighting then you turn it around and tell us that we are training for the wrong reasons.  maybe some of us are interested in actually learning how to defend ourselves, ever think of that?  people have decided to spend their money and their time to learn a self defense system or style not dance, not yoga.  we didnt sign up for a Anthony Robbins seminar so "stifle yourself".  
this video did nothing more than show me  "*Never learn self defense from Jake Mace"*


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol  and I thought I was bad with the lectures... is that what I sound like to other people? lol  Jake is entertaining but he makes a valid points. I'm not a fan of the Zen aspect of Martial Arts.  I like martial arts specifically because it's a fighting system that teaches me how to efficiently hurt someone. If I have be in a fight that I can't avoid then I want to end it as efficiently and as effectively as possible.  Being a healthy lifestyle, staying fit, and stress free are "side effects" or additional benefits that come from training.  When I train kung fu I train to hurt someone and I want to be good at it.  Being good at hurting someone doesn't mean that I'm a tyrant walking down the street to cause misery.  It's quite the opposite.
> 
> The better and more efficient I get at being able to hurt people the less I actually want to hurt someone and the more fighting becomes an option than a requirement.  My growth and maturity comes from what I decide to do with my ability to hurt someone.  I can choose to use my "power" to harm or I can use my "power" to help.
> 
> The funny thing about learning how to fight, almost all teachers want you to take the emotion out of fighting and learn how to not fight with anger or fear.  I didn't think about it until now but if you have the ability to fight without anger or fear then you probably won't get into many fights at all, being that anger and fear are good triggers for getting into fights.


The "taking the emotion out of it" is a factor in emotional intelligence - what I refer to as "emotional maturity". It's important in all aspects of life, and one of the areas that martial arts often helps with (by accident/as a side effect).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> First, IMO a "street fight" just means 'an actual, real-world fight between hostiles which may or may not involve weapons and may or may not be consensual and is NOT for sport or entertainment and is NOT governed by rules, nor does it have referees or official oversight'.
> Secondly, "self defense" just means 'protecting oneself or others from physical harm from hostiles by use of physical and/or non-physical means.' Self defense includes situational awareness, learning to read body language and facial expressions, and learning how to negotiate.
> 
> With that in mind, an experienced street fighter might be a very good person to learn fighting skills from. A person who loves to fight and has been in many avoidable fights might not be the best person to learn self defense from.
> ...


The primary difference (in my vernacular) between a "street fight" and "defending yourself on the street" is in how it starts, and where you end. Someone experienced in street fights is not good for learning either of those from, because they likely get into fights from a lack of self-control. Their techniques are likely quite valid once the situation turns physical. They may not be good at teaching the starting point of an attack, if they are mostly engaging in fights where they see it coming (they helped escalate it).

The other areas you cite as part of "self-defense" is, of course, how we avoid the physical confrontation. That's arguably the most important skill in SD.


----------



## Paul_D (Jul 31, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> but at the same time you want someone with some experience in an actual fight. ?


You are confusing fighting with self defence.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 1, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> You are confusing fighting with self defence.



There is some overlap between the 2. While most self-defense is based on non-physical action (i.e. awareness, negotiation, etc) if that fails then there will be a physical aspect to it, and that physical aspect could very well take the form of a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> By the way.  Street fighters may not be the best people to have dinner time conversations with.  But if you are in a fight.  You would like the fact that any guy backing you up wants to be there.


Unless he REALLY wants to be there. I have no interest in folks who really enjoy fighting like that, and honestly don't want them out there with me.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 1, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> There is some overlap between the 2. While most self-defense is based on non-physical action (i.e. awareness, negotiation, etc) if that fails then there will be a physical aspect to it, and that physical aspect could very well take the form of a fight.


Yes, but the "fighting" aspect of self protection will not look like sparring/street fighting/two martial artist testing their skill. Hence you don’t learn self protection from a street fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 1, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Yes, but the "fighting" aspect of self protection will not look like sparring/street fighting/two martial artist testing their skill. Hence you don’t learn self protection from a street fighter.



Why?


----------



## Red Sun (Aug 1, 2016)

Eh... i think this is apples and oranges. OFC you can learn how to fight from a street fighter. But, it's unlikely an untrained street fighter will be able to teach you a 'style'. And a trained one would probably be better at doing than teaching.


----------



## mograph (Aug 1, 2016)

Is it possible that in some tough neighborhoods, street fights are more a matter of course? 

I'm not talking about two idiots trying to prove their manhood, I'm talking about a guy in a bar in a tough neighborhood, who can't talk down a drunken bully, so he has to defend himself? 

If so, is it possible that the guy can teach us a bit about how drunken bullies behave, for example, when they mean it, when they don't?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Unless he REALLY wants to be there. I have no interest in folks who really enjoy fighting like that, and honestly don't want them out there with me.



If they are not complete maniacs I have no issues if it gets them up in the morning. There is a difference between enjoying fighting and being unprofessional.

 Disappearing under a table and letting someone get bashed is pretty unforgivable even though morally higher.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

mograph said:


> Is it possible that in some tough neighborhoods, street fights are more a matter of course?
> 
> I'm not talking about two idiots trying to prove their manhood, I'm talking about a guy in a bar in a tough neighborhood, who can't talk down a drunken bully, so he has to defend himself?
> 
> If so, is it possible that the guy can teach us a bit about how drunken bullies behave, for example, when they mean it, when they don't?



Brazil has been pretty famous for having that sort of environment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If they are not complete maniacs I have no issues if it gets them up in the morning. There is a difference between enjoying fighting and being unprofessional.
> 
> Disappearing under a table and letting someone get bashed is pretty unforgivable even though morally higher.


I agree with your closing statement. I disagree with your opening. I do have a problem if someone gets up in the morning looking forward to getting into a brawl. They have a cog loose somewhere, and I don't want to be around that. It's different if they get up looking forward to a competition. I don't enjoy that - can never look forward to causing injury to someone unless they clearly deserve it - but that person isn't unbalanced, and I'm okay having them around if a fight happens. If they've trained really hard for competition, they are probably "harder" than I am, so a good partner in a tight spot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 2, 2016)

mograph said:


> Is it possible that in some tough neighborhoods, street fights are more a matter of course?
> 
> I'm not talking about two idiots trying to prove their manhood, I'm talking about a guy in a bar in a tough neighborhood, who can't talk down a drunken bully, so he has to defend himself?
> 
> If so, is it possible that the guy can teach us a bit about how drunken bullies behave, for example, when they mean it, when they don't?


Yes. And those who had to deal with these situations do have useful experience. Whether it's the actual fighting technique depends on a few factors (their success, their ethics, etc.), but they certainly should be able to shed some light on the things you referred to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 2, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Why?


It's unlikely to include time to control distance, you can't count on them not hitting below the belt or biting, and they will be less predictable (and less skilled, probably) than what we're used to seeing in training areas (of any style).

Now add in the difference in environment, the need to watch for other attackers (their friends), and the possibility of weapons we didn't see. There's more, but those are most of the major differences.

EDIT: Oh, and rage, with all its commensurate power, violence, and over-commitment.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> It's unlikely to include time to control distance, you can't count on them not hitting below the belt or biting, and they will be less predictable (and less skilled, probably) than what we're used to seeing in training areas (of any style).
> 
> Now add in the difference in environment, the need to watch for other attackers (their friends), and the possibility of weapons we didn't see. There's more, but those are most of the major differences.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and rage, with all its commensurate power, violence, and over-commitment.


Exept.  Self defence apparently also doesn't look like a street fight.

Which would include those variables.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 2, 2016)

By the way anecdotally.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 3, 2016)

When ever I see one of Jake's videos I remember this...
18 Chambers: Fading Smoke, Broken Mirrors: An Open Letter To Jack Mace


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Exept.  Self defence apparently also doesn't look like a street fight.
> 
> Which would include those variables.


I would say that's true, if by "street fight" you mean two guys squaring off. Yeah, the self-defense component in that situation is usually to walk away from the situation before it gets to that point or otherwise de-escalate rather than accepting the fight. I'm not saying those components never exist in self-defense - certainly there can be time in some situations to control and gauge like you'd do in a competition. It's just not likely to happen - it's just far from the most common scenario in an attack on the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> By the way anecdotally.


Yes, and that fits my description. He didn't step into the fight the other guy started in the parking lot, and never had time/space to control distance on the first hit.

With the "boat rage" incident, he had the opportunity to control, which I assume he did, since he seems to have easily avoided the "sneaker right". He could probably have avoided the physical altercation entirely if he hadn't gone after the guy. It wouldn't be easy. I can't say for sure I'd manage to keep my emotions any better under control than he did.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and that fits my description. He didn't step into the fight the other guy started in the parking lot, and never had time/space to control distance on the first hit.
> 
> With the "boat rage" incident, he had the opportunity to control, which I assume he did, since he seems to have easily avoided the "sneaker right". He could probably have avoided the physical altercation entirely if he hadn't gone after the guy. It wouldn't be easy. I can't say for sure I'd manage to keep my emotions any better under control than he did.



But possibly not the insane rage monster that jake was describing.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I would say that's true, if by "street fight" you mean two guys squaring off. Yeah, the self-defense component in that situation is usually to walk away from the situation before it gets to that point or otherwise de-escalate rather than accepting the fight. I'm not saying those components never exist in self-defense - certainly there can be time in some situations to control and gauge like you'd do in a competition. It's just not likely to happen - it's just far from the most common scenario in an attack on the street.



Yeah.  But you dont compare them in their entirety. You chop up the elements and compare them that way.

If we are looking at a three or ten second self defence situation. It wont contain all the elements of a 15 minute fight.

But there will be 3 ot 10 second sections that will.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  But you dont compare them in their entirety. You chop up the elements and compare them that way.
> 
> If we are looking at a three or ten second self defence situation. It wont contain all the elements of a 15 minute fight.
> 
> But there will be 3 ot 10 second sections that will.


I don't think you'll necessarily find all those elements in a 3-10 second section. But yes, you will find areas of a self-defense situation that has elements found in competition. Not in every SD situation, but certainly in many. That's what makes some competition training valid prep for self-defense.


----------



## JP3 (Aug 3, 2016)

Generally, I agree with the guy in the video.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 3, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think you'll necessarily find all those elements in a 3-10 second section. But yes, you will find areas of a self-defense situation that has elements found in competition. Not in every SD situation, but certainly in many. That's what makes some competition training valid prep for self-defense.



I don't think it is about finding every element though. Just what will work in a context. So a striking style can't grapple but say you want to have that in your tool box. 
You add grappling.

Now in this context it is pretty obvious. But street sport.  You can say there is a style that performs against a whole bunch of known attacks. Lets dump the whole thing because it doesnt cover deescalation. Which becomes a bit of madness in. My mind.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I don't think it is about finding every element though. Just what will work in a context. So a striking style can't grapple but say you want to have that in your tool box.
> You add grappling.
> 
> Now in this context it is pretty obvious. But street sport.  You can say there is a style that performs against a whole bunch of known attacks. Lets dump the whole thing because it doesnt cover deescalation. Which becomes a bit of madness in. My mind.



Bjj gets this treatment a bit.  So mabye they can hold down and choke out most other people on the planet.  If five guys jumped them while they did that they would be in trouble.

So lets not tweak bjj to reduce those risks add some other elements while trying to maintain the strengths of the system. Lets do bloody krav instead.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Exept.  Self defence apparently also doesn't look like a street fight.
> 
> Which would include those variables.



In my opinion it doesn't. The main difference between a street fight and self-defense for me is that in a street fight, both sides are willing participants, whereas in self-defense one side are not willing participants. Yes the physical aspect of the confrontation may be the same but the mentality is completely different. Just look at the expected outcome of both scenarios. If I'm engaging in a street fight my end goal is to win the fight by beating the other guy into submission, but in self-defense my number one aim is to avoid taking damage and if possible escape the situation as quickly as possible.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

Imo...if you have never actually been in a street fight, you should not be teaching any type of fighting or self defense. Simply because a person with no real world application, is not qualified and such a person is only endangering the lives of those he/she teachs.
I never did get how people think that with no real world experience, their opinion should be followed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I don't think it is about finding every element though. Just what will work in a context. So a striking style can't grapple but say you want to have that in your tool box.
> You add grappling.
> 
> Now in this context it is pretty obvious. But street sport.  You can say there is a style that performs against a whole bunch of known attacks. Lets dump the whole thing because it doesnt cover deescalation. Which becomes a bit of madness in. My mind.


At what point did anyone say "dump it"? You're battling strawmen again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> Imo...if you have never actually been in a street fight, you should not be teaching any type of fighting or self defense. Simply because a person with no real world application, is not qualified and such a person is only endangering the lives of those he/she teachs.
> I never did get how people think that with no real world experience, their opinion should be followed.


I'd agree with you entirely, if such experience were readily available without going out and seeking altercations. Most people will rarely have an opportunity to get attacked. If their self-defense is good, they will avoid the attack before things turn physical. I do not have a desire to learn from someone who made choices that repeatedly put them in those situations, except for those who do it professionally (LEO's, bouncers, etc.). Now, if I found an instructor who used to be an idiot and got into a lot of scraps, then turned his life around and was using that experience to teach, that'd be a decent bonus, except that he's still teaching more about fighting than defending.

I prefer a teacher who has proven he can respond to a threat in a real-world situation, but that's about all you can get from someone who doesn't fit into one of the three categories I mentioned above. Beyond that, I'd just want to see that he can handle some resistance in sparring/randori.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Bjj gets this treatment a bit.  So mabye they can hold down and choke out most other people on the planet.  If five guys jumped them while they did that they would be in trouble.
> 
> So lets not tweak bjj to reduce those risks add some other elements while trying to maintain the strengths of the system. Lets do bloody krav instead.


I agree with your frustration. I think the main reason BJJ gets such harsh responses is that so many in the BJJ world put it forth as "the answer", rather than acknowledging the obvious problems. There's nothing wrong with BJJ, so long as you don't go to the ground in the wrong situations because it's the only tool you have. I like it enough that I'm hoping to have time to get to a friend's school and go through the Gracie Combatives in the next year, to beef up my ground game.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

Although


gpseymour said:


> I'd agree with you entirely, if such experience were readily available without going out and seeking altercations. Most people will rarely have an opportunity to get attacked. If their self-defense is good, they will avoid the attack before things turn physical. I do not have a desire to learn from someone who made choices that repeatedly put them in those situations, except for those who do it professionally (LEO's, bouncers, etc.). Now, if I found an instructor who used to be an idiot and got into a lot of scraps, then turned his life around and was using that experience to teach, that'd be a decent bonus, except that he's still teaching more about fighting than defending.
> 
> I prefer a teacher who has proven he can respond to a threat in a real-world situation, but that's about all you can get from someone who doesn't fit into one of the three categories I mentioned above. Beyond that, I'd just want to see that he can handle some resistance in sparring/randori.


Although I partially agree with you, a so called self defense scenario, rarely can be avoided in the real world. I understand that a lot of people train in this and in how to avoid conflict, but a lot of it is just not based in reality. Nor is it based in actual dangerous situations. 

Thats the thing with real life situations.

The reason why a lot of martial arts do not work on the streets, is not due to the art, but do to the lack of real world self defense experience on the part of the instructor.

I, personally, would never train under anyone who lacked real world experience and is the reason why finding a qualified instructor, is a rarety.

People do not put themselves in bad situations a majority of the time. **** just hapoens. 

There are some places(a lot actually) where it has nothing to do with a person even looking for trouble or even knowing that they are in a place with such a threat.

I see that thought quite a bit here on martial talk and always think, its not that simple.

I myself, have never picked a fight nor went looking for one. But, I have been in a few, whether it was defending myself or protecting others. I have seen several people try to use the Descalation tactics to no avail.

It works for the police sure, but that is a give me. Simply because with an LEO, there is a lot more to deal with than just the cop standing in front of you, their guns and the threat of jail that comes with them, is why people back down. Not the techniques LEO's use to descalate the situation. IMO


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> Although
> 
> Although I partially agree with you, a so called self defense scenario, rarely can be avoided in the real world. I understand that a lot of people train in this and in how to avoid conflict, but a lot of it is just not based in reality. Nor is it based in actual dangerous situations.
> 
> ...



The issue is a statistical one. Most people will maybe have one physical encounter in their adult lives. One encounter is not nearly enough to make any judgement on - it can only provide anecdotal input. If someone has 4 or 5, you can start to draw some conclusions of their psychological readiness, but still not their techniques, since they've only demonstrated against a maximum of 4 or 5 attacks (probably less, since many altercations will center around punches). My dad has had a few encounters, including one with a gun. More encounters than me, and all "successful" in that he walked away uninjured. He would not be a good source for self-defense training, neither physical nor avoidance.

De-escalation does work, but not every time (like the physical techniques). I've used it successfully more than once. (I've also failed to use it, and managed to back the other party down - not sure where to classify that one.) Where you see it fail, it was either mis-applied, or it was never going to work there. What you don't see is how often it does work, because those encounters stay relatively quiet and we never notice them unless we're in the middle of them. Avoidance works even better, and there's literally no way to notice that one, since nothing happens, at all. The same goes for target-hardening (making yourself a less desirable target).

EDIT: This statistical issue is why Drop Bear has a point when he talks about "validation" of technique. We can't expect enough street encounters to fully validate a technique or a person, so we have to add in some in-school validation: sparring, competition, randori, purposely resisting a technique, etc.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> Although
> 
> Although I partially agree with you, a so called self defense scenario, rarely can be avoided in the real world. I understand that a lot of people train in this and in how to avoid conflict, but a lot of it is just not based in reality. Nor is it based in actual dangerous situations.
> 
> ...



Just on the last point, most people actually don't back down, unless you have some sort of relationship with them.  By this I mean you can simply know each other, then they often say "okay fighting is only going to delay the inevitable and likely get me more charges so I might as well as get with the program." That said, even then, panic usually means a fight.

Now by fight I do NOT mean some guy (or gal) trying to beat down the cop.  Unless the LEO is wading into a fight already in progress 95% of the "fights" a LEO ends up in are suspects fighting to open up a window to escape.  They are punching, elbowing, trying to throw or trip so they can run.  They know if they aren't armed, and/or haven't committed a violent felony of some sort, that we can't just blast em into next week.  If a tool isn't already drawn (say a taser or OC Spray) they know the range is so short they can get outside it quickly.  The suspect knows that with a few exceptions the extra 25 lbs of gear the LEO is carrying will give them an edge if they manage to get running, but they will fight on a VERY regular basis, the difference is the motive/goal of the fight.

You would actually be surprised at just how often "less than lethal" tools dont work.  OC spray is very effected by not only range but weather conditions.  A Taser has, typically a 25 meter range, but thanks to the mechanism use to spread the probes, all too often when 15 feet or closer you only get pain compliance which can be fought through.  Either you need to be at that longer ranges (so the probes spread enough to get fair muscular disruption) or in melee so you shoot one location with the probes then drive stun somewhere else so that you achieve effective muscular disruption.  The "regular" suspects know these limitations and exploit them, which leads to a lot of physical confrontations.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The issue is a statistical one. Most people will maybe have one physical encounter in their adult lives. One encounter is not nearly enough to make any judgement on - it can only provide anecdotal input. If someone has 4 or 5, you can start to draw some conclusions of their psychological readiness, but still not their techniques, since they've only demonstrated against a maximum of 4 or 5 attacks (probably less, since many altercations will center around punches). My dad has had a few encounters, including one with a gun. More encounters than me, and all "successful" in that he walked away uninjured. He would not be a good source for self-defense training, neither physical nor avoidance.
> 
> De-escalation does work, but not every time (like the physical techniques). I've used it successfully more than once. (I've also failed to use it, and managed to back the other party down - not sure where to classify that one.) Where you see it fail, it was either mis-applied, or it was never going to work there. What you don't see is how often it does work, because those encounters stay relatively quiet and we never notice them unless we're in the middle of them. Avoidance works even better, and there's literally no way to notice that one, since nothing happens, at all. The same goes for target-hardening (making yourself a less desirable target).
> 
> EDIT: This statistical issue is why Drop Bear has a point when he talks about "validation" of technique. We can't expect enough street encounters to fully validate a technique or a person, so we have to add in some in-school validation: sparring, competition, randori, purposely resisting a technique, etc.


It also depends on the people that you are dealing with. In my experience, it works with those who are not violent or have never been in a violent situation. Those who make a career out of it, could care less about descalation. So basically, you have a group that it works on, who are conditioned to obey simply because of they have never known anything else other than submitting to authority.

Bad people do not simply stay in bad areas. That is just wishful thinkin and a dangerous one. 

As stated earlier, if you have to guess what is going to happen and then design techniques that could work, Imo, you are wasting time.

Of course thats if you are training for protection of life and not just as a hobby.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Just on the last point, most people actually don't back down, unless you have some sort of relationship with them.  By this I mean you can simply know each other, then they often say "okay fighting is only going to delay the inevitable and likely get me more charges so I might as well as get with the program." That said, even then, panic usually means a fight.
> 
> Now by fight I do NOT mean some guy (or gal) trying to beat down the cop.  Unless the LEO is wading into a fight already in progress 95% of the "fights" a LEO ends up in are suspects fighting to open up a window to escape.  They are punching, elbowing, trying to throw or trip so they can run.  They know if they aren't armed, and/or haven't committed a violent felony of some sort, that we can't just blast em into next week.  If a tool isn't already drawn (say a taser or OC Spray) they know the range is so short they can get outside it quickly.  The suspect knows that with a few exceptions the extra 25 lbs of gear the LEO is carrying will give them an edge if they manage to get running, but they will fight on a VERY regular basis, the difference is the motive/goal of the fight.
> 
> You would actually be surprised at just how often "less than lethal" tools dont work.  OC spray is very effected by not only range but weather conditions.  A Taser has, typically a 25 meter range, but thanks to the mechanism use to spread the probes, all too often when 15 feet or closer you only get pain compliance which can be fought through.  Either you need to be at that longer ranges (so the probes spread enough to get fair muscular disruption) or in melee so you shoot one location with the probes then drive stun somewhere else so that you achieve effective muscular disruption.  The "regular" suspects know these limitations and exploit them, which leads to a lot of physical confrontations.


Ah, yes. From an LEO standpoint, I'd suspect there's less backing down, and your descriptions sound plausible. If you're there, something significant has already happened. 

For us mere mortals, de-escalation does happen. I've had people come at me obviously looking for a fight, and kept it from going there. Because of the situations and motivations you mentioned, that's a lot less likely to happen for an LEO. If they come at you looking for a fight, they already have a peg significantly loose somewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> It also depends on the people that you are dealing with. In my experience, it works with those who are not violent or have never been in a violent situation. Those who make a career out of it, could care less about descalation. So basically, you have a group that it works on, who are conditioned to obey simply because of they have never known anything else other than submitting to authority.
> 
> Bad people do not simply stay in bad areas. That is just wishful thinkin and a dangerous one.
> 
> ...


I'm curious what you think the alternative is. With competition, it's pretty easy to figure what you're likely to encounter. For the street, there are too many variables and too few encounters to narrow it down to what worked in the street, every time. Everything is unlikely (though some are more unlikely than others), so you aren't going to get a chance to go test techniques in enough scenarios to make fully-informed decisions. Your best bet is to use what evidence you have (anecdotal or drawn from reasonably related situations like LEOs and bouncers), combine it with what works in competitions/sparring/randori, add in what you're able to experiment with in the school/gym, and put together the most useful combination you can.

Nobody - I repeat nobody - has enough physical self-defense experience to do otherwise. That would take 100's of defenses from common street attacks to even begin to be meaningful.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah, yes. From an LEO standpoint, I'd suspect there's less backing down, and your descriptions sound plausible. If you're there, something significant has already happened.
> 
> For us mere mortals, de-escalation does happen. I've had people come at me obviously looking for a fight, and kept it from going there. Because of the situations and motivations you mentioned, that's a lot less likely to happen for an LEO. If they come at you looking for a fight, they already have a peg significantly loose somewhere.



I agree de-escalation should indeed be the path for anyone not in a specific career.  About the only time de-escalation doesn't work is if the person confronting you is not in possession of their mental faculties.

I was simply commenting to a specific point, that somehow the tools an Officer has means that fights are routinely avoided.  That really isn't the case.  The fights still happen, in my experience, with the same frequency, the tools simply gives you more options on how to address the inevitable.

De-escalation even works for police in specific circumstances.  Crisis Interventions, if you know the suspect etc.  The main difference is, unlike civilian life running/walking away is not always an option.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious what you think the alternative is. With competition, it's pretty easy to figure what you're likely to encounter. For the street, there are too many variables and too few encounters to narrow it down to what worked in the street, every time. Everything is unlikely (though some are more unlikely than others), so you aren't going to get a chance to go test techniques in enough scenarios to make fully-informed decisions. Your best bet is to use what evidence you have (anecdotal or drawn from reasonably related situations like LEOs and bouncers), combine it with what works in competitions/sparring/randori, add in what you're able to experiment with in the school/gym, and put together the most useful combination you can.
> 
> Nobody - I repeat nobody - has enough physical self-defense experience to do otherwise. That would take 100's of defenses from common street attacks to even begin to be meaningful.


I cant answer that as I went and tested it in real scenerios. I know(for me what works). I have observed, as well, those who believed in your method, bit off more than they can chew. LEO's might be a good source and maybe bouncers as well, but in my experience, not so much. I do have a few relatives and friends who are LEO but, in that town, most leo's make the decision not to even engage with violent offenders. It should be known that in Yakima county, police are not required to respond, even if a fellow officer is in need. Watched it happen to a friend, he quit the force when he was punished for mentioning it, when he was in that situation and two fellow officers, two blocks away,  failed to respond to his call for aid.

I guess it was a tough gang and they didnt want to be marked. Thankfully, he made it out alive.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> I cant answer that as I went and tested it in real scenerios. I know(for me what works). I have observed, as well, those who believed in your method, bit off more than they can chew. LEO's might be a good source and maybe bouncers as well, but in my experience, not so much. I do have a few relatives and friends who are LEO but, in that town, most leo's make the decision not to even engage with violent offenders. It should be known that in Yakima county, police are not required to respond, even if a fellow officer is in need. Watched it happen to a friend, he quit the force when he was punished for mentioning it, when he was in that situation and two fellow officers, two blocks away,  failed to respond to his call for aid.
> 
> I guess it was a tough gang and they didnt want to be marked. Thankfully, he made it out alive.



Ummm with those kind of rules I hope your county is "quiet.". If those rules existed where I work it would be complete anarchy on the streets.  Also the people wouldn't stand for it, when they call 911 they expect police response.

As for the last bit... being "marked" by a street gang happens in the movies, not irl.  Sounds to me like its a demoralized Department, likely an understaffed Sheriff's department, that deal with unincorporated portions of a County.  There are a lot more demands made of LE Agencies that provide for specific Political Subdivisions. Person doesn't get response, calls ward leader, ward leader yells at the Mayor or Supervisor then it all rolls downhill.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Ummm with those kind of rules I hope your county is "quiet.". If those rules existed where I work it would be complete anarchy on the streets.


With the gangs...it pretty much is.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> With the gangs...it pretty much is.



But that's my point.  Not acting as you say creates an environment where criminal element believes they can act with impunity.  If you aren't willing to hang your butt out a bit you need to find another career imo.

Though I found this article about Yakima interesting...10 Cities Where Americans Are Pretty Much Terrified to Live

Basically people thinking it's unsafe at night though it's violent crime is actually lower than the National Rate.  

Great another research project.  I like going over statistics when bored lol. The


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> But that's my point.  Not acting as you say creates an environment where criminal element believes they can act with impunity.  If you aren't willing to hang your butt out a bit you need to find another career imo.
> 
> Though I found this article about Yakima interesting...10 Cities Where Americans Are Pretty Much Terrified to Live
> 
> ...


Yes, Yakima is a bad place and the violent crime statistic is altered and doesnt actually show the truth. The county has been known to fudge the numbers for years. Hell, a majority of the murders are not even reported on the news.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> Yes, Yakima is a bad place and the violent crime statistic is altered and doesnt actually show the truth. The county has been known to fudge the numbers for years. Hell, a majority of the murders are not even reported on the news.



While it's off field, and thus this will be my last bit, it's he first part that is really my point.  If what you note was a sanctioned "official" policy the politicians, and people, would be having a stroke.  What you note, if not an exaggeration, not only contributes to the problem but is likely against the Department's codified policy.  It is basically a civil suit waiting to happen and possibly even illegal depending on the way the Laws Governing LE are written in the State.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> While it's off field, and thus this will be my last bit, it's he first part that is really my point.  If what you note was a sanctioned "official" policy the politicians, and people, would be having a stroke.  What you note, if not an exaggeration, not only contributes to the problem but is likely against the Department's codified policy.  It is basically a civil suit waiting to happen and possibly even illegal depending on the way the Laws Governing LE are written in the State.


You would think...but in reality...its not the case. I know people find it hard to believe but LEO's in the U.S. are not required to risk there lives for anybody. As for the civil suit, I believe he is going through that now. 

But if as always, its the good cops word, against the bad cops word. 

Who do you think the force will protect?

Here is another law from Yakima county, if somebody tags your fence, you get a $400 fine for not cleaning it off yourself. If you catch the kids doing it and call the Yakima police department, you will be told that an LEO has to catch them with the spray can in hand. Its a minor thing, but shows that the police department, doesnt want to be bothered.

It is what it is.


----------



## JP3 (Aug 4, 2016)

IMO a self-defense situation arises when a Predator-Prey relationship takes place, even when the "predator" person is misled as to the prey mentality, awareness, and/or physical skill/power of the supposed "prey," the end result is the same, i.e. an attack comes with little or no warning and/or chance to avoid the confrontation and the defender is put in a position where the defensive position is mandated by the attack.

The other situation is the Duel situation, in which both combatants enter the situation because they wish to do so. Sometimes, mid-stream, the Predator-Prey situation is flipped, and this takes place, which is where a lot of martial arts people get in trouble with the laws of men.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> You would think...but in reality...its not the case. I know people find it hard to believe but LEO's in the U.S. are not required to risk there lives for anybody. As for the civil suit, I believe he is going through that now.
> 
> But if as always, its the good cops word, against the bad cops word.
> 
> ...



Um I am completely aware of the first part...I have only been doing the job for almost 20 years in a high crime community.   What you are speaking of here is often called the Public Duty Doctrine.  The reason I noted the importance of State Law is because there are Legislative exceptions to it in some cases.  Though none requiring Police to be "suicide troops."

However literally not responding to a call period, as an example, could be an issue for a number of reasons.  First depending on the circumstances a complete dismissal of a radio dispatch could rise to the level of gross negligence and/or recklessness because you cant even say you had the facts to properly evaluate the incident in order to justify why you didn't take action. Then depending on the reason for the inaction, if determined, it can potentially rise to a level of official repression.

Then you have the impact of other issues.  If your official oath of office goes beyond the "defend the Constitution..." To include "and enforce all the laws thereof" such as mine does, it can also create a legal issue.  Codified Department policy can compound the issues.  There can be an "unofficial" policies, as the one you speak of seems to be, but if the action in accordance with this unofficial policy contradicts written policy not only can the officer be sued but the supervisor and department itself for failure to supervise, properly train yada yada yada. 

In many cases like this it isn't even one person's word against another either.  All 911 calls and radio dispatches are public record, department policies as well.  At least in my county all patrol cars have GPS and the records of not only where I am/was but how fast I was traveling at a given time are saved for a period of time.  So such inaction isn't hard to prove at all.

/Shrug


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 4, 2016)

You could probably look up the piece that the local t.v. station did on it. This was a few years ago and I nolonger live there(for obvious reasons) so, I havent followed it since. 
Or the newspaper, yakima herald republic. The police force there, doesnt seem to be to concerned with citizen safety.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> You could probably look up the piece that the local t.v. station did on it. This was a few years ago and I nolonger live there(for obvious reasons) so, I havent followed it since.
> Or the newspaper, yakima herald republic. The police force there, doesnt seem to be to concerned with citizen safety.



I have been digging actually and have been finding nothing.  I had already assumed that if what you are saying here was accurate that a reporter, hell a bunch of em, would have been running with this story pretty hard.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Just on the last point, most people actually don't back down, unless you have some sort of relationship with them.  By this I mean you can simply know each other, then they often say "okay fighting is only going to delay the inevitable and likely get me more charges so I might as well as get with the program." That said, even then, panic usually means a fight.
> 
> Now by fight I do NOT mean some guy (or gal) trying to beat down the cop.  Unless the LEO is wading into a fight already in progress 95% of the "fights" a LEO ends up in are suspects fighting to open up a window to escape.  They are punching, elbowing, trying to throw or trip so they can run.  They know if they aren't armed, and/or haven't committed a violent felony of some sort, that we can't just blast em into next week.  If a tool isn't already drawn (say a taser or OC Spray) they know the range is so short they can get outside it quickly.  The suspect knows that with a few exceptions the extra 25 lbs of gear the LEO is carrying will give them an edge if they manage to get running, but they will fight on a VERY regular basis, the difference is the motive/goal of the fight.
> 
> You would actually be surprised at just how often "less than lethal" tools dont work.  OC spray is very effected by not only range but weather conditions.  A Taser has, typically a 25 meter range, but thanks to the mechanism use to spread the probes, all too often when 15 feet or closer you only get pain compliance which can be fought through.  Either you need to be at that longer ranges (so the probes spread enough to get fair muscular disruption) or in melee so you shoot one location with the probes then drive stun somewhere else so that you achieve effective muscular disruption.  The "regular" suspects know these limitations and exploit them, which leads to a lot of physical confrontations.



Every experience with violence and police from my perspective is that guys are happy to fight us because if they win they will generally get away with it. We dont have weapons,are not the guys who decide who goes to jail and there is no assaulting a police officer equivalent.

As soon as the cops roll up it is like giving the guy a Valium.

I had a mate of mine stabbed with a screwdriver. After we grabbed him cops put him in a taxi and sent him home.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 4, 2016)

JP3 said:


> IMO a self-defense situation arises when a Predator-Prey relationship takes place, even when the "predator" person is misled as to the prey mentality, awareness, and/or physical skill/power of the supposed "prey," the end result is the same, i.e. an attack comes with little or no warning and/or chance to avoid the confrontation and the defender is put in a position where the defensive position is mandated by the attack.
> 
> The other situation is the Duel situation, in which both combatants enter the situation because they wish to do so. Sometimes, mid-stream, the Predator-Prey situation is flipped, and this takes place, which is where a lot of martial arts people get in trouble with the laws of men.



I actively go from prey to duel though. Just because it starts to create advantages that being prey doesn't.

So if i am confronted i would rather instigate and remain at a tactical advantage. I may not go after a guy.  But i am ready to go if he comes after me. 

I have been sucker punched to many times to put up with that nonsense


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> But that's my point.  Not acting as you say creates an environment where criminal element believes they can act with impunity.  If you aren't willing to hang your butt out a bit you need to find another career imo.
> 
> Though I found this article about Yakima interesting...10 Cities Where Americans Are Pretty Much Terrified to Live
> 
> ...


Juany, you and I have something in common. I'll end up chasing those stats, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

JP3 said:


> IMO a self-defense situation arises when a Predator-Prey relationship takes place, even when the "predator" person is misled as to the prey mentality, awareness, and/or physical skill/power of the supposed "prey," the end result is the same, i.e. an attack comes with little or no warning and/or chance to avoid the confrontation and the defender is put in a position where the defensive position is mandated by the attack.
> 
> The other situation is the Duel situation, in which both combatants enter the situation because they wish to do so. Sometimes, mid-stream, the Predator-Prey situation is flipped, and this takes place, which is where a lot of martial arts people get in trouble with the laws of men.


Those are ends of the spectrum. There are also attacks with plenty of cues, where there are opportunities to de-escalate, avoid, or at least know it's coming.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I actively go from prey to duel though. Just because it starts to create advantages that being prey doesn't.
> 
> So if i am confronted i would rather instigate and remain at a tactical advantage. I may not go after a guy.  But i am ready to go if he comes after me.
> 
> I have been sucker punched to many times to put up with that nonsense


Agreed. That's the basic stance of any realistic self-defense, if avoidance/de-escalation doesn't work. You turn into the monster they wish they hadn't grabbed hold of.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 4, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Those are ends of the spectrum. There are also attacks with plenty of cues, where there are opportunities to de-escalate, avoid, or at least know it's coming.



Exactly.  As an example the "typical" half drunk bar fight often starts with the guy coming up to you, probably over an imagined slight, chest puffed up, he may chest bump ya, he is definitely going to be having words with ya.

If he accuses you of knocking over his drink when really he is just looking for someone to blame for his own sloppy drunk *** knocking it over, say "sorry I didn't know." 99% of the time time they think they won and walked away.  "What were you doing eyeing up my girl?" "Sorry, she is attractive and you sir are a luckily man." You just puffed up his ego, probably again not a fight.

Now if he moves to a shove, or balls those fists and lowers his chin, offense is now the best defense, but verbal judo usually works better.  The problem is verbal judo requires swallowing your pride.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 4, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  As an example the "typical" half drunk bar fight often starts with the guy coming up to you, probably over an imagined slight, chest puffed up, he may chest bump ya, he is definitely going to be having words with ya.
> 
> If he accuses you of knocking over his drink when really he is just looking for someone to blame for his own sloppy drunk *** knocking it over, say "sorry I didn't know." 99% of the time time they think they won and walked away.  "What were you doing eyeing up my girl?" "Sorry, she is attractive and you sir are a luckily man." You just puffed up his ego, probably again not a fight.
> 
> Now if he moves to a shove, or balls those fists and lowers his chin, offense is now the best defense, but verbal judo usually works better.  The problem is verbal judo requires swallowing your pride.


That last part is the hardest for many of us. I'm my father's son in this - I have a hard time just ignoring an idiot. I've learned to suppress the urge to taunt them into showing their idiocy (which invariably leads to them wanting a fight) and let them have an empty "win", but the urge is still there.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 5, 2016)

JP3 said:


> IMO a self-defense situation arises when a Predator-Prey relationship takes place, even when the "predator" person is misled as to the prey mentality, awareness, and/or physical skill/power of the supposed "prey," the end result is the same, i.e. an attack comes with little or no warning and/or chance to avoid the confrontation and the defender is put in a position where the defensive position is mandated by the attack.



I would disagree on this, as there are nearly always signs you can look for in terms of people's body language and circumstances that can tip you off, you just have to know what to look for. It's not like a person is standing completely motionless and expressionless and then suddenly attacks you. The signs are there if you know what to look for, but the problem is that most people don't know what to look for and are rubbish at reading body language. You get the same thing when dealing with animals. A lot of uninformed people think that animals attack without warning, when this simply isn't true. All predators displays signs of intent before they attack, you just have to know what to look for. In all of this I am reminded of a recent situation at the pool I work at. There were this group of youths in the pool causing trouble for most of the day so we (the lifeguards) told them to leave. They got angry and started shouting insults, cussing and telling us to fight them. I watched the exchange between one of the youths and one of our lifeguards who was really going at it, and could see that no matter what they said they would never have started a fight, purely from looking at his body language. If he had changed his body language and gone into a more predatory mode, I would have seen it and stepped in, but he didn't and soon after he and his friends left. 

Learning to read body language is a very important skill that is sadly overlooked by most people, who rely on their ears rather than their eyes to give them the information.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I have been digging actually and have been finding nothing.  I had already assumed that if what you are saying here was accurate that a reporter, hell a bunch of em, would have been running with this story pretty hard.



Adam Basford is his name. Its funny you couldnt find anything...I just googled "cops cry for help ignored by fellow police" and the story came up. You wont find the original story though, I tried that and its been deleted and changed. But thats to be expected.

Apparently he was charged with filing a false police report against another officer and they settled with back pay and he has left yakima since.

There is a piece on pro literate about it but, those sites are questionable.

But I am surprised that you think it would be reported nationally. Things like this, do not get the response you think it does, on the national level.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 5, 2016)

The last part always strikes me as odd.  Look at a deer (prey) and their eyes are on the sides of the head.  Look at a wolf (predator


Guthrie said:


> Adam Basford is his name. Its funny you couldnt find anything...I just googled "cops cry for help ignored by fellow police" and the story came up. You wont find the original story though, I tried that and its been deleted and changed. But thats to be expected.
> 
> Apparently he was charged with filing a false police report against another officer and they settled with back pay and he has left yakima since.
> 
> ...



Well I was doing a search based on the County name with search terms like "police scandal", police not responding to 911 calls etc.  Plus Chrome's phone browser, I have found, doesn't give the same results all the time.  I will be checking it out (with your info thank you) as soon as my duty shift allows (am at work atm lol)


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I would disagree on this, as there are nearly always signs you can look for in terms of people's body language and circumstances that can tip you off, you just have to know what to look for. It's not like a person is standing completely motionless and expressionless and then suddenly attacks you. The signs are there if you know what to look for, but the problem is that most people don't know what to look for and are rubbish at reading body language. You get the same thing when dealing with animals. A lot of uninformed people think that animals attack without warning, when this simply isn't true. All predators displays signs of intent before they attack, you just have to know what to look for. In all of this I am reminded of a recent situation at the pool I work at. There were this group of youths in the pool causing trouble for most of the day so we (the lifeguards) told them to leave. They got angry and started shouting insults, cussing and telling us to fight them. I watched the exchange between one of the youths and one of our lifeguards who was really going at it, and could see that no matter what they said they would never have started a fight, purely from looking at his body language. If he had changed his body language and gone into a more predatory mode, I would have seen it and stepped in, but he didn't and soon after he and his friends left.
> 
> Learning to read body language is a very important skill that is sadly overlooked by most people, who rely on their ears rather than their eyes to give them the information.



Let me guess you dont have crocodiles where you live. 

No warning is kind of their trade mark.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 5, 2016)

Guthrie said:


> .
> 
> But I am surprised that you think it would be reported nationally. Things like this, do not get the response you think it does, on the national level.



Okay found it and yeah, so far the only articles I am finding giving positive light to his account are ones that have a clearly ideological bent.  Since there are dispatch records though (according to the local CBS affiliate), his account should be easily verifiable (time of radio call, time of officer response etc).

As for National a few reasons.  First there are a number of "National" LE specific news web sites, such as Police one, that over stuff like this that happen in even the smallest towns, especially if (again as the CBS affiliate said) the news goes viral on social media.  Also, due to my "groups" and other settings FB's algorithms usually point stories like this on the top of my feed.  I consider viral stuff via social media as "National" distribution.

All in all though it looks like a mess.  On the one hand there does appear to be at least one prior questionable incident regarding the Yakima police covering up a use of force incident.  On the other hand it appears the Basford has some issues in that he provided 3 different statements.  One article I found quoted the author of the Pro Liberate article (which actually supports Basford's account) as saying... "Basford described to me a difficult upbringing in a troubled home with a father who was intractably mired in a criminal subculture. Earlier this year his father committed suicide in suspicious circumstances. There may be a connection between Cardenas’s associates and the death of Basford’s father.."

Yeah, gotta love incidents where there is some evidence that all sides have agendas.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 5, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That last part is the hardest for many of us. I'm my father's son in this - I have a hard time just ignoring an idiot. I've learned to suppress the urge to taunt them into showing their idiocy (which invariably leads to them wanting a fight) and let them have an empty "win", but the urge is still there.



Man. walking away is such a luxury for me i love when i can do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Let me guess you dont have crocodiles where you live.
> 
> No warning is kind of their trade mark.


Alligators are more common out my way, and they usually do the same. It's not unheard of for them to warn someone off, but that's not their predator mode.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Man. walking away is such a luxury for me i love when i can do it.


Is that a job thing? It's something LEO's, security guards, bouncers don't have the luxury of, and part of what makes their "self-defense" different from my "self-defense".


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Let me guess you dont have crocodiles where you live.
> 
> No warning is kind of their trade mark.



The closest crocs to me are safely housed at London Zoo, and while I agree that some animals don't give any warning of their intent to attack, most animals (especially mammals) do, and particularly dogs and cats if you know what to look for.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Is that a job thing? It's something LEO's, security guards, bouncers don't have the luxury of, and part of what makes their "self-defense" different from my "self-defense".



Yeah.  if i was working and someone chest bumped me  I would probably have to kick them out.  As a bouncer I am targeting exactly the guys I should be avoiding.

I would love to be able to just not care and walk away. If i am not being paid.  That is exactly what i do.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Alligators are more common out my way, and they usually do the same. It's not unheard of for them to warn someone off, but that's not their predator mode.



They have cues though, if you know what to look for, most all creatures (outside of the insect world) do we are just better at reading the cues of mammals, especially humans, dogs and cats (because of the pet relationship.). As an example the cat has the "butt wiggle" lol.  Humans, even if they purposefully avoid lowering the chin or balling the fists (virtually subconscious changes) at a minimum they will do a targeting glance towards the areas of the body they see as an immediate threat.  If unarmed they will quickly glance at your hands, if armed openly a quick glance at the hands and the weapons to see how readily they can be obtained etc.  In a situation like my job they may be also looking for escape routes.  More than once I have said "oh damnit, this is going to be a..." foot pursuit, fight, whatever a second or two just before it happened just by making sure my scanning wasn't just looking at the suspect's body but also their eyes.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> They have cues though, if you know what to look for, most all creatures (outside of the insect world) do we are just better at reading the cues of mammals, especially humans, dogs and cats (because of the pet relationship.). As an example the cat has the "butt wiggle" lol.  Humans, even if they purposefully avoid lowering the chin or balling the fists (virtually subconscious changes) at a minimum they will do a targeting glance towards the areas of the body they see as an immediate threat.  I unarmed they will quickly glance at your hands, if armed openly a quick glance at the hands and the weapons to see how readily they can be obtained etc.



I reckon the chin would go up more often than down. Instinctively.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I reckon the chin would go up more often than down. Instinctively.



It depends on the attitude of the person. Tilting the chin upwards is a more aggressive and dominant position, whereas the chin down is more defensive as it better protects your neck.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It depends on the attitude of the person. Tilting the chin upwards is a more aggressive and dominant position, whereas the chin down is more defensive as it better protects your neck.



The determining idea here was instinctive. A trained fighter would tuck his chin.

I don't think that is an instinctive trait.


----------



## Juany118 (Aug 6, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> It depends on the attitude of the person. Tilting the chin upwards is a more aggressive and dominant position, whereas the chin down is more defensive as it better protects your neck.



I have seen the chin go up BUT that is typically in the posturing phase.  In my experience when they go to "pull the trigger" so to speak the chin instinctively comes down to protect the neck.  They don't even think about it, it just happens.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 6, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Okay found it and yeah, so far the only articles I am finding giving positive light to his account are ones that have a clearly ideological bent.  Since there are dispatch records though (according to the local CBS affiliate), his account should be easily verifiable (time of radio call, time of officer response etc).
> 
> As for National a few reasons.  First there are a number of "National" LE specific news web sites, such as Police one, that over stuff like this that happen in even the smallest towns, especially if (again as the CBS affiliate said) the news goes viral on social media.  Also, due to my "groups" and other settings FB's algorithms usually point stories like this on the top of my feed.  I consider viral stuff via social media as "National" distribution.
> 
> ...


I think one of the problems with any info these days, every news outlet has become questionable, especially social medie. Social media as a reliable source, is like wikipedia, a whole lot of, insert whatever you like.

But news wise, alot of things are missed on the national level.

Take the small town I live in. Just a few years back we had officers doing warrantless searches and harassing
people however they seen fit. A bunch of us got together and put a stop to it. We found that our town did not have a charter and that the police force was operating under the guise of LE...when in reality, they were no more than security guards. The police chief resigned, one officer was incarcerated for sexual harassment( he now mows lawns, if he can get the work) and the city joined there forces with a another town adjacent to us and now piggy back on their charter.

It wasn't even in the local paper.
Not all government corruption is reported.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  if i was working and someone chest bumped me  I would probably have to kick them out.  As a bouncer I am targeting exactly the guys I should be avoiding.
> 
> I would love to be able to just not care and walk away. If i am not being paid.  That is exactly what i do.


Agreed. I've trained with folks who worked that sort of job. They don't need as much of some of the skills I do, and more of other skills. The physical framework is very similar, but the choices are more narrow when you're on the job.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I reckon the chin would go up more often than down. Instinctively.


I've seen both. I think part of the differentiation is how much they fear getting hit. Someone who doesn't want to get hit, oddly, is more likely to raise the chin as they instinctively try to keep their head further from harm. As you said, any reasonable training is likely to stop that from happening. I'd think chin-down is more a posture of attack, given an individual who expects he can actually win (so less fear of getting hit).


----------



## drop bear (Aug 6, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I've trained with folks who worked that sort of job. They don't need as much of some of the skills I do, and more of other skills. The physical framework is very similar, but the choices are more narrow when you're on the job.



Different sides of a coin. There are elements either way. Bouncers get attacked and robbed about as much as everyone else. It is not that you become immune to that because of your profession.

This one happened to a friend for mine a while back.

Attacker sent to jail


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 7, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Different sides of a coin. There are elements either way. Bouncers get attacked and robbed about as much as everyone else. It is not that you become immune to that because of your profession.
> 
> This one happened to a friend for mine a while back.
> 
> Attacker sent to jail


That's a valid point. I would assume that most folks who train to become better bouncers would also want to train for self-defense. Assuming that, if I were putting together a training plan for someone who was a bouncer, I'd want to include both. Of course, if I was putting together a plan specifically to help train bouncers to be better bouncers, I'd leave out a few things and focus more on some others to tailor it to their needs.


----------



## JP3 (Aug 8, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> I would disagree on this, as there are nearly always signs you can look for in terms of people's body language and circumstances that can tip you off, you just have to know what to look for. It's not like a person is standing completely motionless and expressionless and then suddenly attacks you. The signs are there if you know what to look for, but the problem is that most people don't know what to look for and are rubbish at reading body language. You get the same thing when dealing with animals. A lot of uninformed people think that animals attack without warning, when this simply isn't true. All predators displays signs of intent before they attack, you just have to know what to look for. In all of this I am reminded of a recent situation at the pool I work at. There were this group of youths in the pool causing trouble for most of the day so we (the lifeguards) told them to leave. They got angry and started shouting insults, cussing and telling us to fight them. I watched the exchange between one of the youths and one of our lifeguards who was really going at it, and could see that no matter what they said they would never have started a fight, purely from looking at his body language. If he had changed his body language and gone into a more predatory mode, I would have seen it and stepped in, but he didn't and soon after he and his friends left.
> 
> Learning to read body language is a very important skill that is sadly overlooked by most people, who rely on their ears rather than their eyes to give them the information.


.

And I in turn disagree with the conclusion you've reached, in that while I do agree with the premise that the person in the predator role always gives a sign that they are going to attack, the person in the prey role may not be given a chance to see it approaching, i.e. mugging, elevator attack, surprised for whatever reason walking alone.  I'm not saying that these people perhaps "should" have seen it, but they didn't for whatever reason, perhaps the skill of the predator, perhaps their own lack of awareness... but they didn't see it.

And Drop, you made me laugh. It is much more fun to flip the roles and take off the Clark kent Prey Shirt and expose the Superman predator outfit, ain't it.

Sucker punching is a pain in the ***. Especially when it's not from the guy in front of you who you "thought" was the problem, but his buddy you didn't SEE behind you, and for whom you didn't have backup at that instant.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 8, 2016)

JP3 said:


> .
> 
> And I in turn disagree with the conclusion you've reached, in that while I do agree with the premise that the person in the predator role always gives a sign that they are going to attack, the person in the prey role may not be given a chance to see it approaching, i.e. mugging, elevator attack, surprised for whatever reason walking alone.  I'm not saying that these people perhaps "should" have seen it, but they didn't for whatever reason, perhaps the skill of the predator, perhaps their own lack of awareness... but they didn't see it.
> 
> ...



Well as far as the signs of aggression go.  You would really want to make sure they are right. Because if you are looking for A and they do B you have lost a second there.

Otherwise i have been caught out too many times to have a lot of faith in these signs of attack. And move more towards trying to give myself a bit more time and space to react.

The tunnel scene from ronin is the best example. You may not spot an ambush but you at least know how to avoid the situation.






And none of that is really super secret martial arts. You can find risk assessment tools on the net.

Here is the state emergency service one which is pretty good.

Risk assessment — Victoria State Emergency Service

And is a handier method to follow than the signs of aggression. Which seem to consist of if they have throbbing veins,eyes popping out and are screaming death at you. They may be about to engage in violence.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Aug 9, 2016)

JP3 said:


> .
> 
> And I in turn disagree with the conclusion you've reached, in that while I do agree with the premise that the person in the predator role always gives a sign that they are going to attack, the person in the prey role may not be given a chance to see it approaching, i.e. mugging, elevator attack, surprised for whatever reason walking alone.  I'm not saying that these people perhaps "should" have seen it, but they didn't for whatever reason, perhaps the skill of the predator, perhaps their own lack of awareness... but they didn't see it.
> 
> ...



And here we get the biggest problem with self defense. It doesn't matter how much training you've had or how many techniques you know, they are all worthless if you don't see the attack coming.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2016)

Midnight-shadow said:


> And here we get the biggest problem with self defense. It doesn't matter how much training you've had or how many techniques you know, they are all worthless if you don't see the attack coming.


That's not a problem with self-defense. It's a human limitation. If you don't see, you're not defending, at all. That's why situational recognition (bad places, knowing your blind spots, cues from people, etc.) are so important.


----------



## Paul_D (Aug 9, 2016)

Regarding the discussion on whether or not there will be signs of an impending attack, whilst there will on some occasions be signs (for example Eye Contact Challengers) for the most part experienced criminals will use the three of the four D’s (Dialogue, Deception and Distraction) and to lull you into a false sense of security before they utilise the fourth D (Destruction).

In other words, they will go out of their way to do as much as possible to hide their intentions and not give any signs of what they intend as this greatly increases there chances of success.

Ted Bundy:- Bundy, a good-looking, intelligent law student, learned to lure women into his car by various forms of deception. He would put a cast on his arm or leg, then walk across a university campus carrying several books. When he saw an interesting coed standing or walking alone, he’d “accidentally” drop the books near her. The girl would help him gather them and take them to his car.

“They liked me because I was so harmless.  I carried one woman’s shopping home.  I lifted her baby out of the stroller and smashed its head in to a tree.  Then I raped and strangled her mother “.  Michael Ross, American serial killer/rapist.

“Who’d have thought a one-legged man could hurt anyone?  Julie thought I was harmless – took pity on me…then I smashed her head in with a ball pin hammer”  Michael Samms, serving life for the murder of Julie Dart and the abduction of Stephanie Slater.

The following are from interviews with both criminals and victims from the case studies section of Dead or Alive: The Definitive Self Protection Handbook:-

“We ask them the time. This distracts them while we pull out our knives”.  Mugger serving 5 years for robbery with violence

“There was the barman.  He grassed on me out the law about the glassing so he had to have some as well.  I heard he was a bit of a Karate man so I didn’t take any chances.  I walked in to the bat first thing in the morning, while it was quiet, less witnesses see.  When he seen me he said I was barred, I said “Look man, I don’t want any grief with you.  I know you can motor (fight), I just want to tell you that there is no hard feelings on my part, let’s shake on it”.  lovely wanker feel for it.  As he grabbed my right hand to shake it I pulled him hard into me and stabbed him right in the kidneys”.

Interview with “Steve”, convicted of Gratuitous assault

“Two men asked me for the time.  I was laden with shopping so I put the bags on the floor to look at my watch.  Suddenly I felt an awful wrench on my arm, the next thing I knew these two men had run off with my shopping and my watch”  - Mary.

This in some part brings us back to the topic of the thread.  Male martial artist are mostly only worried about getting into a fights as they are unlikely to be targeted by murders, rapists, or muggers.

They then mistake getting into a street fight or a drunken pub brawl with Self Defence, and also mistakenly beleive that the violence they will face if they are mugged will be the same as if they got into a fight, and then they believe that the fighting skills they learn in the dojo are the answer to the realities of civilian violence.

For example, the person in the video the OP posted talks uses the term “Self Defence” in the title of his video and then proceeds to talk for almost 8 minutes about street fighting and sparring and martial arts, and doesn’t talk about once about self defence.  Clearly he has mistaken getting into bar brawls and street fights with self defence and does not have the slightest clue of the realities of civilian violence as it pertains to Self Protection.

Worse than that he is, like many on this forum, ONLY able to see self defence as "men getting into fights with each other".


----------



## drop bear (Aug 9, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Regarding the discussion on whether or not there will be signs of an impending attack, whilst there will on some occasions be signs (for example Eye Contact Challengers) for the most part experienced criminals will use the three of the four D’s (Dialogue, Deception and Distraction) and to lull you into a false sense of security before they utilise the fourth D (Destruction).
> 
> In other words, they will go out of their way to do as much as possible to hide their intentions and not give any signs of what they intend as this greatly increases there chances of success.
> 
> ...




The principles are still quite often the same. In sparring and manly fights you should learn concepts of range. Where you are safe and where you are not. In self defence these ranges become your pre aggression tools.

So one of the first rules of fighting is if you are in range of the other guy and you are not effectively hitting them. You are in danger.

You go back to basic risk management and the first rule is avoid that situation.

This is also a fighting rule. First rule of defending underhooks. Is don't get underhooks.

They all overlap if you know where to look. The advantage of looking at the situation in that manner is you actually have a tested method to go off and so don't fall in to the story trap.

The fence while a good way to reduce a threat is not a good place in which to stay.






Too many people think they are protected here. Where understanding fighting will tell you that you are not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2016)

Paul_D said:


> Regarding the discussion on whether or not there will be signs of an impending attack, whilst there will on some occasions be signs (for example Eye Contact Challengers) for the most part experienced criminals will use the three of the four D’s (Dialogue, Deception and Distraction) and to lull you into a false sense of security before they utilise the fourth D (Destruction).
> 
> In other words, they will go out of their way to do as much as possible to hide their intentions and not give any signs of what they intend as this greatly increases there chances of success.
> 
> ...


Two points on this. 

First, using psychopaths and sociopaths as examples does not disprove the rule. They are outside the norm by a wide margin. They don't show normal cues because they don't experience normal empathy and/or normal emotional range, and the cues we look for are predicated on both.

Second, just because a criminal is trying to deceive, that doesn't mean they don't give cues. There are cues that can indicate lying - situation where someone is deliberately trying to not look like they are lying.

Thirdly, you have a good point. Not all people will supply the cues we look for. Some will supply different cues, and some (psychopaths) may not supply any useful cues, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The principles are still quite often the same. In sparring and manly fights you should learn concepts of range. Where you are safe and where you are not. In self defence these ranges become your pre aggression tools.
> 
> So one of the first rules of fighting is if you are in range of the other guy and you are not effectively hitting them. You are in danger.
> 
> ...



This is why many TMA focus on the concept of (in Japanese) ma-ai - distance and timing. It's important to pay attention y which of your tools work from different ranges, because you are in range of an attackers similar tools at those ranges.

That said, this is difficult to manage in some situations where there aren't any significant pre-violence cues. Someone standing too close in McDonald's can't be a trigger for fight prep every time.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> This is why many TMA focus on the concept of (in Japanese) ma-ai - distance and timing. It's important to pay attention y which of your tools work from different ranges, because you are in range of an attackers similar tools at those ranges.
> 
> That said, this is difficult to manage in some situations where there aren't any significant pre-violence cues. Someone standing too close in McDonald's can't be a trigger for fight prep every time.



Yeah.  But if there was a solution. We would all be doing it.  We just manage as best we can.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Aug 10, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That last part is the hardest for many of us. I'm my father's son in this - I have a hard time just ignoring an idiot. I've learned to suppress the urge to taunt them into showing their idiocy (which invariably leads to them wanting a fight) and let them have an empty "win", but the urge is still there.


Perhaps, you don't realize that you too show yourself to be an idiot.
What's the point of taunting someone into looking like an idiot other than to make yourself look smart? Having been there, I can tell you that it doesn't make you look smart to the people watching. It just looks like 2 idiots fighting.

You're right to resist that temptation.


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2016)

Tired_Yeti said:


> Perhaps, you don't realize that you too show yourself to be an idiot.
> What's the point of taunting someone into looking like an idiot other than to make yourself look smart? Having been there, I can tell you that it doesn't make you look smart to the people watching. It just looks like 2 idiots fighting.
> 
> You're right to resist that temptation.
> ...


Or perhaps I do realize.


----------



## Tired_Yeti (Aug 12, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Or perhaps I do realize.



OK...that made me laugh! [emoji1]


"Re-stomp the groin"
Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk


----------

