# Non injurious, humane self defense?



## Joab (Sep 10, 2009)

*Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*

*Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


----------



## K831 (Sep 10, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


 
Any attacker you can stop by giving him a bruise was probably not a real threat in the first place.

All decent self defense systems contain what you mention, the option to





Joab said:


> *not seriously injure an attacker? *


 it just depends on the application of the practitioner. However, any art or style containing techiques designed only to cause 





Joab said:


> *bruise, soreness, and the like. *


 is woefuly inadequate. 

Lastly, your serious injury list 





Joab said:


> *an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, *


 takes very little force to acomplish.




Joab said:


> *the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*


 
Isn't a pathetically watered down martial art, but rather, proper discipline, situational awarness, knowledge of you local SD law and past precident. Also, I think each person has to define, for themselves, what they will and won't do in the name of SD or defense of others. Think this through and decide BEFORE you are faced with the situation. Come to terms with it, and then do what needs to be done, regardless of potential legal outcomes.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 11, 2009)

You may be interested in learning about or learning the Bando Monk System; it's a non-violent martial art system.  Heavy emphasis is placed on learning to control oneself, and to use methods which do the least practical harm (ideally, no unrecoverable injury) to an attacker.

It might also help if you explained more about why you're looking for something like this...


----------



## still learning (Sep 11, 2009)

Hello, Verbal training?  ....maybe JUDO?

Guns.....stops lots of people....and you don't have to shoot them too...study this further....

Humane self-defense?  .....using power of langauges...proper wording!
------------------------------------
The "power" of LOVE?  ....um?
------------------------------------

...having a army behind you....facing one person....works!   most likely the one person will not attack?
-------------------------------------
Tazers?  ..pepper sprays?
-----------------------------------
Having a "killer instincts" and the other person see it!
---------------------------------
USA- has nuclear bombs....and most other nations...will not attack...
NON-use of weapons is a humane self-defense....
---------------------------------
STUDY-  joints locks....most likey what you are looking for....

Aloha,  lock the joints...locks the attacker, locks of luck!!!


----------



## Mike Hamer (Sep 11, 2009)

I agree with these posts, but the first thing that comes to my mind is Aikido.


----------



## Ironcrane (Sep 11, 2009)

I would say give Judo a try. Some of those throws will hurt someone enough to keep them from getting back up, without putting them in the hospital. Depending, of course, on how hard you put the person down, and what kind of shape they're in.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*



Well, there isn't any.
It is the person using it who decides whether the other guy ends up in the hospital. Take aikido for example. You can use it in many different ways. Depending on how you use it, you can either inflict pain with the goal of submitting you opponent, or you just break whatever appendage you manage to grab.

The same goes for ninpo, ju-jutsu, karate, ... everything basically.
You learn techniques, and depending on how you use them, you injure the other person.

Judo was already mentioned, but that is misleading. Using judo, you have a lot of options. Several of those let you drop the other guy on his head -> injury. Even a simple throw will cause significant injury of the other guy doesn't know how to fall, or hits something on his way down.

Really, it is not the art, it is the person using it.


----------



## Hudson69 (Sep 11, 2009)

I have been doing this for a while and I have never done serious injury to anyone using defensive tactics (LEO) and I cannot think of anyone else on my department or anyone from the County (the Deputies) having done so either.  

We use our own system and the County uses Krav Maga both are very practical, take only about 40 hrs to get the core of it and mostly about control although the Krav stuff seems a little more ...."violent?"


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> You may be interested in learning about or learning the Bando Monk System; it's a non-violent martial art system. Heavy emphasis is placed on learning to control oneself, and to use methods which do the least practical harm (ideally, no unrecoverable injury) to an attacker.
> 
> It might also help if you explained more about why you're looking for something like this...


 
To avoid getting into trouble with the law.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

still learning said:


> Hello, Verbal training? ....maybe JUDO?
> 
> If you throw a guy on concrete he wil likely break bones and perhaps die.
> 
> ...


 
You've got some god points, thanks for your post.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Mike Hamer said:


> I agree with these posts, but the first thing that comes to my mind is Aikido.


 
The question than is does Aikido work? Some would say yes, others no.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well, there isn't any.
> It is the person using it who decides whether the other guy ends up in the hospital. Take aikido for example. You can use it in many different ways. Depending on how you use it, you can either inflict pain with the goal of submitting you opponent, or you just break whatever appendage you manage to grab.
> 
> That's what I have been taught, there isn't any. But, trying to be open minded, I thought I would throw the question out and see if there are any.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> I have been doing this for a while and I have never done serious injury to anyone using defensive tactics (LEO) and I cannot think of anyone else on my department or anyone from the County (the Deputies) having done so either.
> 
> We use our own system and the County uses Krav Maga both are very practical, take only about 40 hrs to get the core of it and mostly about control although the Krav stuff seems a little more ...."violent?"


 
I've taken Krav Maga, your likely going to hurt somebody using it.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


 
The tools are available in every martial art it is up to the practicer to determine what degree of injury to inflict. Aikido looks peaceful until you throw someone into a wall. One would think Bagua was very peaceful because we have no fist strikes we use only the palm. Until you see the palm can cause internal bleeding,blindness from poked in the eye,a palm strike to break someones nose. Judo throws such as Tomoe nage(wheel throw) can have quite an impact on someone who does not know breakfalls. Sadly in the situtations of life and death surivial you might have to perform a broken bone,busted knee and so on but it is entirely up to you the amount of injury to inflict and if you choose to help the injured person or not.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> To avoid getting into trouble with the law.



The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim.  There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack.  I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true.  They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.

What the law is interested in is when a person may engage in self-defense, and more specifically, when a person may defend themselves with deadly force.  If the conditions are met, then the self-defense is lawful, and the degree of injury experienced by the attacker is not a consideration.

When the _'degree of injury'_ might come to the fore is if a victim were to find himself or herself sued by an attacker, so one might think of that as a consideration; but I would not.  Self-defense is perforce an immediate and urgent need.  I would not want to hamstring myself by attempting to limit my response to that which would likely do the least damage to the attacker.

Police officers also need to consider the degree of force applied, but they operate under different rules.  They are expected to use only that force which is required to secure an apprehension or to defend themselves.  They are expected to have training and the ability to choose less lethal responses from among a variety of options.

For the citizen, the concerns are _'am I authorized to defend myself'_ and _'may I use deadly force in this case'?_

Having said that, I still believe that analysis of a situation in a SD situation is important, and _'running away'_ is a valid response if it is safe to do so.

I can understand anyone desire to protect themselves but to avoid unnecessary injury to anyone, even an attacker.  Like others, the first thing that came to my mind was Aikido. Also like others, I agree that it is down to the way it is used (degree of skill and intent of the practitioner) as to whether or not it will be especially non-injurious to the attacker.

Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that gives concern to the well-being of the attacker in a self-defense situation.  I am primarily concerned with my own well-being, placing that above the well-being of anyone who attacks me.  I am also concerned with not running afoul of the law, and I will absolutely turn tail and run or drive away or whatever else I can do to escape if I can reasonably do so to avoid being attacked.  I'll even turn over my wallet and possessions if I feel that it will keep me from being killed or seriously injured.  However, if I feel that I cannot retreat, and if I feel that turning over my possessions is still likely to get me killed or seriously injured, then I am going to defend myself with everything I have, and if the attacker gets seriously injured, I figure that's their karma, not mine.  I'm not trying to kill them, but if they get dead, oh well.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> To avoid getting into trouble with the law.


Then what you need isn't a particular style -- it's particular knowledge.

The laws of self-defense are a little complicated, and worthy of study by any martial artist.  Even a technique that doesn't do "serious injury" can be excessive and unjustified... while lethal force can, depending on the specific circumstances be acceptable and justified use of force.


----------



## MJS (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


 

This is, IMHO, one of the goals of the martial arts.  We should reach a point, when we can control what we do, how we do it, etc.  I mean think about it.....this is why I cringe when I hear people talking about the supposed "one shot one kill, deadly techniques, like biting and eye gouging"  Sure those are all fine and good and they do work, but IMO, if thats what the person needs to do to always win, then that person needs to re-evaluate their training.  

So yes, to answer your question, any art out there can do this, but it all depends on the person doing the art.


----------



## Decker (Sep 11, 2009)

I agree with what was earlier said by *K831*, that "Any attacker you can stop by giving a bruise was probably not a real threat in the first place".
An angry guy who just happened to vent on you, and whom you managed to talk into calming down, isn't really a threat.
A criminal, say, threatening you with a knife to your throat and demanding your valuables, is a threat, considering you either stop him with your valuables (which I'm pretty sure are worth much more than a bruise, or a few) or an incapacitating technique.

Actually my first thought on seeing "non-injurious self defense" was that it would constitute either verbal de-escalation (not always successful or applicable), complete avoidance of potentially dangerous scenarios (impossible), escape (again not always successful or applicable) or a skill difference between the defender and attacker sufficient for a "serious injury"-free conflict resolution (really difficult, not always possible).

I suppose the amount of danger (read: potential for physical harm to be inflicted upon you) you're in would often be proportionate to the amount of physical harm required to be inflicted on the attacker for him to stop, barring abovementioned skill differences, escape routes, and Force powers at the Mind Trick level.


----------



## still learning (Sep 11, 2009)

Hello,   If there was a humane Self-defense art that works 100% of the time?

Martial arts today..would be doing it!    ..the police...armies of the world...

...when you come down to it?  ....it is NOT the form of self-defense ...it is the people you will be facing!

...and some people...can be HANDLE W/ humane self-defense?  ....others you may need to be more aggressive to suvive and live another day...

...there is NO SIMPLE ANSWERS  ....there is simple techniques.

Aloha,   911 works


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2009)

Regarding the mention of a gun:

My understanding is that you should *NEVER *draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.

Nor should you ever "shoot to wound."

If you produce a firearm for self defense, you must only do so with the knowledge that, by shooting center body mass to *stop the threat*, you very well may end up shooting the aggressor dead.

Drawing a gun to wave like a Magic Wand of Don't Attack Me is a BAD idea.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *



Ask yourself this.......how does one physically weaker and smaller than their attacker utilize less force than their attacker is using against them, and still come out ahead?

It's a nice idea, that isn't usually practical.  Because if you were stronger and more physically fit than your attacker, you probably wouldn't be attacked........predators usually have a pretty good prey selection process.


----------



## still learning (Sep 11, 2009)

zDom said:


> Regarding the mention of a gun:
> 
> My understanding is that you should *NEVER *draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.
> 
> ...


 
Hello, YET? ...it does work in stopping most aggressors' ...."hands up!" ...spread your legs...give me 50 jumping jacks..."one, two" ...

Aloha, ...weapons...do work in stopping further attacks...can be a long handle flashlight...etc

PS: Shotgun weddings.....Humane self-defense's  ....


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 11, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> I have been doing this for a while and I have never done serious injury to anyone using defensive tactics (LEO) and I cannot think of anyone else on my department or anyone from the County (the Deputies) having done so either.
> 
> We use our own system and the County uses Krav Maga both are very practical, take only about 40 hrs to get the core of it and mostly about control although the Krav stuff seems a little more ...."violent?"



I've been in Law Enforcement for 12 years, and the reason why you've managed not to injure anyone severely, is the large number of tools on your belt, superior numbers, and the fact that most folks don't seriously fight the police......most resisting situations are someone trying to get away, not assault an officer.

I hear officers all the time say 'I had to fight a guy last night'.......what they really mean was the guy actively resisted by trying to get away.  In those situation, where an officer is physically fit, has tools, has backup, and has his authority, he can control without injury........the problem is that really isn't a 'fight'.  A fight is where someone is trying to HURT or KILL you, not just escape.  Resisting occurs all the time in law enforcement, but a real honest to god FIGHT is rare, and usually results with someone going to the hospital or the morgue. 

Now, get yourself that very rare situation where someone isn't just trying to get away, but actively assault you, and i'm willing to bet that you'll be causing injury.


----------



## joeygil (Sep 11, 2009)

Try Western / Collegiate Wrestling.  Since it's a sport, they work on not injuring your opponent.  Yet there's plenty of pain compliance and holds to "neutralize" your opponent, all non-lethally and might not even leave a bruise.

Ask a bouncer at a club or a bar, they tend to know pain compliance holds without getting in serious trouble.


If you're drunk cousin, uncle or friend needs to be "controlled" this seems like a good alternative if you can't talk them down.  Much better than finger jabs to the eyes anyway...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


I'm not sure you can ever avoid the attacker hurting themselves in the process of trying to hurt you, but any soft style has many answers.
Sean


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2009)

still learning said:


> Hello, YET? ...it does work in stopping most aggressors' ...."hands up!" ...spread your legs...give me 50 jumping jacks..."one, two" ...



I'm not saying firearms don't deter aggressors; I'm saying drawing a firearm as a "non-injurious, humane self defense" solution is a *bad mindset*.

For example, consider a scenario in which you and your brother or a dear friend are having drinks and he (or she!) turns violent:

You are suggesting you draw a pistol to back them down? Sure, if they DO back down, then all is well, and situation ended with no injuries. But what if they say "**** IT" and attack? THEN what? You shoot him? You let him wrestle with you for control of the gun?

Again, to repeat myself, a firearm is NOT a magic wand that makes an attacker stop. Sure, anyone in their right mind WOULD stop, and many aggressors WILL begin to comply with your demands.

But you can NOT depend on them being in their right mind. Fact is, you may have to shoot them or face the consequences of them taking that firearm away and shooting YOU.


----------



## zDom (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *



I think one of the very best options can be a blood choke.

Done correctly, and if the attacker is in reasonably good shape, they go to sleep and wake up with no ill effects.

But it is a slippery slope: you have to be well-trained enough to target the blood flow to the brain without crushing the windpipe; to cause unconciousness without causing brain damage  to knock them out temporarily and not put them permanently to sleep!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Absolutely agree and +1 zDom.

Brandishing a firearm may - and I say 'may' - result in defusing a situation, or in persuading a criminal to abort an attack on a victim.

However, a firearm should never be drawn until and unless the requirements have been met for the legal use of deadly force.  If that is not true, the person brandishing the firearm is probably breaking the law.  If it is true, then the person brandishing the firearm should most likely use it to defend their own life immediately.

In other words, if I am authorized to defend myself with deadly force, and I choose to draw a weapon, the very next thing that happens is I take a human life with it.  No waiting, no pausing, no flourishing the gun or waving it about.  Draw firearm, aim center mass and fire with the intent to protect my own life.

Guns are not magic wands.  If you're authorized to use it, use it.  If you're not authorized to use it and you are waving it around, not only are you wrong, but you're liable to be killed yourself.

About the only circumstances I can think of where I would NOT immediately employ a firearm that I had drawn in self-defense would be if the person attacking me IMMEDIATELY (like that nano-second) surrendered and aborted his attack.  He's got like half a heartbeat to prevent me from squeezing the trigger by giving up, and I'm not going to tell him that first.  He stops or he dies.  End of discussion.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim.  There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack.  I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true.  They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.
> 
> What the law is interested in is when a person may engage in self-defense, and more specifically, when a person may defend themselves with deadly force.  If the conditions are met, then the self-defense is lawful, and the degree of injury experienced by the attacker is not a consideration.



I think that depends on what country you are in.
In Belgium, the law states that the response has to be proportional to the attack. In other words, if you hit me, I cannot just block and then break your neck. Non-lethal force cannot legally be countered by lethal force.

Of course, this is just the letter of the law. level of force is open to interpretation, and if the lethality of the response was not intentional, then the case is in favor of the defender.

I mean its not cut and dried, but the degree of injury of the attacker IS a consideration (afterwards). That is why countering a lapel grab with a fist to the plexus and then a kick right in the face is not a good idea.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that gives concern to the well-being of the attacker in a self-defense situation.  I am primarily concerned with my own well-being, placing that above the well-being of anyone who attacks me.  I am also concerned with not running afoul of the law, and I will absolutely turn tail and run or drive away or whatever else I can do to escape if I can reasonably do so to avoid being attacked.  I'll even turn over my wallet and possessions if I feel that it will keep me from being killed or seriously injured.  However, if I feel that I cannot retreat, and if I feel that turning over my possessions is still likely to get me killed or seriously injured, then I am going to defend myself with everything I have, and if the attacker gets seriously injured, I figure that's their karma, not mine.  I'm not trying to kill them, but if they get dead, oh well.



+1 on this one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> I think that depends on what country you are in.
> In Belgium, the law states that the response has to be proportional to the attack. In other words, if you hit me, I cannot just block and then break your neck. Non-lethal force cannot legally be countered by lethal force.
> 
> Of course, this is just the letter of the law. level of force is open to interpretation, and if the lethality of the response was not intentional, then the case is in favor of the defender.
> ...



Sorry, I should have specified that I meant the USA.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> The tools are available in every martial art it is up to the practicer to determine what degree of injury to inflict.
> Well,  the one I'm most familiar with there is very little that doesn't maim or kill. The originator doesn't like the name of the system to be in in forums like this.
> 
> Aikido looks peaceful until you throw someone into a wall.
> ...


 
Quite true


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

No such animal...except "Nike-Fu".

Even "less lethal" LE tools like tasers, OC, beanbag rounds etc. carry risks of severe injury or death.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim. There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack. I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true. They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.
> 
> This gets very complicated, and I'm not a lawyer. Self defense laws vary, you need to consult your local laws. In the USA it is generally true that a jury or judge or both will decide if the amount of force if any was appropriate, or put another way, what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. If you use deadly force against an attacker who is not using lethal force he can be the one who is considered the one who is engaging in self defense even though he initiated it. If the attack occurs in your own home it is an entirely diiferent ballgame. In some states like Washington State you can immediately defend yourself the moment he unlawfully enters your home including deadly force with a fiream, as English Common Law tradition that a mans' home is his castle holds true in their laws. This is not the case in Delaware, where even in your own home you are supposed to retreat if possible, insane as that is definitely to me.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> This is, IMHO, one of the goals of the martial arts. We should reach a point, when we can control what we do, how we do it, etc. I mean think about it.....this is why I cringe when I hear people talking about the supposed "one shot one kill, deadly techniques, like biting and eye gouging" Sure those are all fine and good and they do work, but IMO, if thats what the person needs to do to always win, then that person needs to re-evaluate their training.
> 
> So yes, to answer your question, any art out there can do this, but it all depends on the person doing the art.


 
Any art eh? Well, the ones I have taken don't have a lot of that in their repertoire. Heck, all four taught me to kick out a knee to begin with. I know how to do it many different ways. These include tae-kwon-do, wing chun, krav maga and one that doesn't like to be included in forums like this.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.



So would we all, but going into "combat", so to speak, with the attitude of fear of lawsuits will only help make you dead. 

If you think you have worries, try working in LE. Cops have gotten themselves killed by not acting with enough force...out of fear of litigation. 

You train in effective techniques, use them WHEN APPROPRIATE, make wise after action decisions and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.



Again, in the USA, there is no such thing as a requirement to inflict only a certain degree of damage and no more.  It just doesn't exist for citizens.

If you have the right to self-defense, you have the right.  The level of damage you may inflict does not enter into it.

I hear you saying you fear arrest.  If you are not entitled to defend yourself, you are right to fear it.  If you are entitled to defend yourself, you have nothing to fear.  And it does not matter what you do to defend yourself, short of applying deadly force when it is unwarranted.

You fear something that doesn't exist in the US.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Decker said:


> I agree with what was earlier said by *K831*, that "Any attacker you can stop by giving a bruise was probably not a real threat in the first place".
> Well, they might not expect resistance.
> Bullies tend to e cowards, fighting back frightens them.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I would love to learn the Jedi mind trick.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

still learning said:


> Hello, If there was a humane Self-defense art that works 100% of the time?
> 
> Martial arts today..would be doing it! ..the police...armies of the world...
> 
> ...


If they get there on time. Never seems to be a cop around when you need one...


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

zDom said:


> Regarding the mention of a gun:
> 
> My understanding is that you should *NEVER *draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.
> 
> ...


I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Ask yourself this.......how does one physically weaker and smaller than their attacker utilize less force than their attacker is using against them, and still come out ahead?
> 
> It's a nice idea, that isn't usually practical. Because if you were stronger and more physically fit than your attacker, you probably wouldn't be attacked........predators usually have a pretty good prey selection process.


 
Many self defense teachers would agree with you, like all of my former teachers. They may be right, you may be right.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.



Then you were trained wrong. There are plenty of times where you would be justified in drawing a weapon without firing it. Many citizens successfully defend themselves with a gun without firing a shot.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

joeygil said:


> Try Western / Collegiate Wrestling. Since it's a sport, they work on not injuring your opponent. Yet there's plenty of pain compliance and holds to "neutralize" your opponent, all non-lethally and might not even leave a bruise.
> 
> Ask a bouncer at a club or a bar, they tend to know pain compliance holds without getting in serious trouble.
> 
> ...


I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

zDom said:


> I think one of the very best options can be a blood choke.
> 
> Done correctly, and if the attacker is in reasonably good shape, they go to sleep and wake up with no ill effects.
> 
> But it is a slippery slope: you have to be well-trained enough to target the blood flow to the brain without crushing the windpipe; to cause unconciousness without causing brain damage  to knock them out temporarily and not put them permanently to sleep!


 
Is that similiar to the Japanese stranglehold? If they have a bad heart it could kill them.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> So would we all, but going into "combat", so to speak, with the attitude of fear of lawsuits will only help make you dead.
> 
> You may be right. I would say it depends on the situation, how competent the attacker is.
> 
> ...


 
That's what I have been trained to do, quite honestly. Merely exploring other options.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

If you are going to wait and test your opponent to see "how competent he is" your chance of winding up dead increases.

I admire the intent behind your question but attacking/defending yourself WAS, IS and always WILL BE a violent endeavor and as such...to be successful in either..will always require "violence" of a sort which comes with the possibility of injury. The only way to avoid injury is to avoid the confrontation in the first place.


----------



## Joab (Sep 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If you are going to wait and test your opponent to see "how competent he is" your chance of winding up dead increases.
> 
> It all depends. If you have some idiot throw some wide arcing, utterly telegraphed wild punch that is incrdibly easy to see coming, well, I might get hit because I was laughing initially. If the guy knows what he is doing, than yes, your right.
> 
> I admire the intent behind your question but attacking/defending yourself WAS, IS and always WILL BE a violent endeavor and as such...to be successful in either..will always require "violence" of a sort which comes with the possibility of injury. The only way to avoid injury is to avoid the confrontation in the first place.


 
Well, that's the way I have always been trained. They may be right you may be right. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Joab said:


> I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.



I am a US Marine and worked in civilian Law Enforcement, we were never taught that.

What we were taught was that if you are legally justified to use deadly force, and you choose to draw your weapon, you'd better be prepared to use it to kill, because that's most likely what is going to happen.

In other words, you don't draw your weapon unless you are prepared to use and justified in doing so.

I would understand your point of view as _"the gun is not a magic wand, don't wave it around and expect things to get better."_

If I draw my weapon, I presume that the next thing that is going to happen is that someone is going to die and I don't want it to be me.  However, if my attacker surrenders immediately - and I mean most ricky tick - then yes, I'll refrain from making them several hundred grains heavier.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

And there are times you may be looking for someone or securing your castle, where there may be someone out there with bad intent. Its a good idea to have your weapon upholstered while you check.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Then you were trained wrong. There are plenty of times where you would be justified in drawing a weapon without firing it. Many citizens successfully defend themselves with a gun without firing a shot.



I would never draw a weapon unless I were prepared to use it.

If I can manage to avoid firing, yay me.  But I would not draw a firearm I was not prepared to use to kill with.  I would never point it at someone I was not prepared (and justified) to kill.  If I draw my weapon, it will only by by the speed of surrender and the grace of G-d that I do not discharge it.

The problem with citizens solving problems by drawing weapons without using them is that it often works, so people get the idea that a gun is a magic wand - wave it around, everything gets better.

In my limited experience, nothing ever gets better once a gun comes into play, and your life will become a lot more complicated for a very long time if you have to fire it, whether you are right, wrong, or indifferent.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And there are times you may be looking for someone or securing your castle, where there may be someone out there with bad intent. Its a good idea to have your weapon upholstered while you check.



Damned right.  And if you have drawn it and do not intend to use it, it's a stick.  Plus, the BG is going to take it away and kill you with it.

Draw a weapon only if you are prepared to kill with it.  If you can't do that, don't draw it.  It's a drawback at that point.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would never draw a weapon unless I were prepared to use it.
> 
> If I can manage to avoid firing, yay me.  But I would not draw a firearm I was not prepared to use to kill with.  I would never point it at someone I was not prepared (and justified) to kill.  If I draw my weapon, it will only by by the speed of surrender and the grace of G-d that I do not discharge it.
> 
> ...



Absolutely, but IMO there is a big difference between "If I draw I am prepared to use it" and "I will only draw if I am ready to fire". If you are waiting till its "trigger time" you are going to be way behind the engagement curve.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Absolutely, but IMO there is a big difference between "If I draw I am prepared to use it" and "I will only draw if I am ready to fire". If you are waiting till its "trigger time" you are going to be way behind the engagement curve.



I think we're saying the same thing here.  I am saying _"If I draw I am prepared to use the weapon to kill."_

I do not advocate waiting to draw the weapon until I am about to send rounds downrange.  I am saying that drawing in the context of not intending to use the weapon as designed is not conducive to your long-term good health.  I am sure this does not apply to you, but too many people think the gun is a magic wand to be waved at problems.

Your example of a prowler in your house - if I go hunting in the middle of the night, I will be armed, and the weapon will be out.  But I'll also be prepared to use the weapon.  If one thinks to hold an intruder at bay with the gun whilst dialing 911, think again.  Yes, it might happen that way, but don't count on it.  If you can't pull the trigger, you should not have a gun in your hand.  That's all.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think we're saying the same thing here.  I am saying _"If I draw I am prepared to use the weapon to kill."_
> 
> I do not advocate waiting to draw the weapon until I am about to send rounds downrange.  I am saying that drawing in the context of not intending to use the weapon as designed is not conducive to your long-term good health.  I am sure this does not apply to you, but too many people think the gun is a magic wand to be waved at problems.
> 
> Your example of a prowler in your house - if I go hunting in the middle of the night, I will be armed, and the weapon will be out.  But I'll also be prepared to use the weapon.  If one thinks to hold an intruder at bay with the gun whilst dialing 911, think again.  Yes, it might happen that way, but don't count on it.  If you can't pull the trigger, you should not have a gun in your hand.  That's all.



Yes, we are in agreement.


----------



## still learning (Sep 12, 2009)

Hello, Ever watch those "high speed" police chases?  ....They always draw there guns pointing to the person in the car that get stop..

Yes a few times they had to fire back....Most time NO shootings!!

Pointing a gun ....will cause the aggressor to think about it and hopefully comply!

...the point is this?  .....what can we use that will stop an aggressor....?
sometimes it may mean using weapons...a knife...a baseball bat...guns..
IF it works? ....to stop the person(s)....Good!

If we have to use it? ....than NOT consider a humane self-defense tool...cross this off that list- (humane self-defense list) 

Aloha,

NO simple answers....just good techniques!


----------



## MJS (Sep 12, 2009)

Joab said:


> Any art eh? Well, the ones I have taken don't have a lot of that in their repertoire. Heck, all four taught me to kick out a knee to begin with. I know how to do it many different ways. These include tae-kwon-do, wing chun, krav maga and one that doesn't like to be included in forums like this.


 
Guess you didn't read my post too well.  Lets look at it again.  I said:




> This is, IMHO, one of the goals of the martial arts.* We* should reach a point, when* we* can control what *we* do, how *we* do it, etc. I mean think about it.....this is why I cringe when I hear people talking about the supposed "one shot one kill, deadly techniques, like biting and eye gouging" Sure those are all fine and good and they do work, but IMO, if thats what the person needs to do to always win, then that person needs to re-evaluate their training.
> 
> So yes, to answer your question, any art out there can do this, but it all depends on the person doing the art.


 
Notice the key words there?  I've been doing Kenpo for over 20yrs now.  One heck of a brutal art, seeing that pretty much every technique involves kicking the groin, a break of some sort, elbowing the face, etc.  Its up to us, the students of the art, to control what we do.  Again, if WE, as students, can't control what WE do, when WE are doing a technique, then WE need to sit down and figure out what WE are doing wrong.  

Do I need to break someones arm every time they do a lapel grab on me?  Of course not.  I should be able to adapt what I do, meaning, remove the threat by means of a joint lock, a throw/takedown or going all the way to a break.  

So I'll say it again...any art can offer this, but its up to us to figure it out.  

Mike


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 12, 2009)

Joab said:


> Many self defense teachers would agree with you, like all of my former teachers. They may be right, you may be right.



The reality is that a lot of folks in the martial arts are trying to find a way around violence.....which is great in theory, but not always so hot in practice.  Sometimes the more effective path is more effective and efficient violence, properly applied.


----------



## kaizasosei (Sep 12, 2009)

I agree with the ideas of jointlocks and controlled chokes...jujutsu, aikido.  

Thing is with aikido, that it comes on slowly, exponentially.  For example, you setup and get the guys hand or arm in a certain position seting up for further techniques but the attacker doesn't see what is going on(if done perfectly), and by the time he's figured it out, it's too late.  Same with bjj, how many times now(a couple at least) have i been on top trying to work something and then out of nowhere-triangle choke.   Techniques can be so very deceptive.  From a strategic point of view once an attacker exposes a certain vulnerable area, he's game.  Be it striking or locks, one still need to have at least certain amount of strength and precision. 

By exponential i mean that in certain aikido moves, the moves are done in steps.  The final step is when the attacker is fixed on the floor, before that there may be still up to 5 or more steps.  So to get to the first few steps, the attacker does not think he is yet in any danger.  But when he reacts accordingly to step 2 or 3, it may start to become clear that he is going down.  That is why, one must not think of the last step and try for it.  It just has to come on its own. Of course if an attacker has martial arts experience, then it could also put a spin on things.  But many are oblivious to the inner workings of the many techniques and the principles thereof and can be easily tricked and manipulated without harming them much. It's way cooler and more efficient taking someone down without harming them much, if possible, aside from the whole moral aspect.  If two are the same strength, skill and similar strategic position, i think it can get pretty ugly unless one manages to work a technique or lock.  

I think that the post by Stilllearning really summed up the most realistic approaches.

I think that it is not so black and white, do nothing or smash the larynx or break a nose...there are many shades or grey and most confrontations don't turn physical.  But if there is a physical confrontation one must weigh things out very carefully and whatever you do, do it smoothly.  Run away, play chicken or let loose with some serious physical violence from which the attacker will not walk away from unscathed.  

I would only worry about the attacker once i am sure that i am safe.  Love your enemy; a truly noble maxime.  But i think that when it comes to fighting, it is better to think of safety first.  Sometimes, it's hit or be hit, kill or be killed- in that situation, a moment of hesitation can mean death- on the other hand-one moment to soon and you become a vicious criminal dishing out uncalled for violence.

First you must be prepared to do anything otherwise, you are in no position to be selective.

j

j


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 12, 2009)

In order to operate effectively, we must lean to injure to degree.......IF we can protect ourselves, others, accomplish the mission/goal/job, etc, safely to ourselves, using a lessor level of force, then that is what we should.

Where the danger comes in is the belief that with the right combination of Hapo-kwon-do-ju-fu, we can be smaller, weaker and more out of shape than our attacker, and still effortless control him, without injury.  I don't know that reality anywhere supports that notion......what's more, that belief is reinforced when systems avoid heavy sparring as proofing, and thereby convince themselves that their techniques that work on cooperative partners, now automatically works the same on someone intent to take their head off.


----------



## joeygil (Sep 12, 2009)

Joab said:


> I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.



Interesting. I guess I had the wrong idea.  Anyway, I still think western wrestling would be a good way to go.


----------



## blackxpress (Sep 12, 2009)

zDom said:


> Regarding the mention of a gun:
> 
> My understanding is that you should *NEVER *draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.
> 
> ...



Amen, brother.  One of the first rules of firearms safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.  I don't believe a person should even carry a gun unless he has made up his mind ahead of time that he will shoot to kill if the situation warrants it.  If you're not willing to pull the trigger, don't carry a gun.  Period.

As for "non-injurious" SD tactics, I have little interest in such things.  Maybe I'm just a barbarian but if anybody attacks me, my goal is to injure them as badly as I can as quickly as I can and get the hell out of there before his buddies have time to react.  I'll deal with the cops later.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 12, 2009)

Joab said:


> I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.



They do work to some degree......but they work best when you are bigger and stronger than your resisting subject.  They are the kind of techniques than can be employed when you have a significant advantage over the resisting subject, and don't wish to cause serious physical injury.

As I stated, the danger comes in thinking those techniques can be applied to win a confrontation against someone who has an advantage of us, not the other way around.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 12, 2009)

blackxpress said:


> Amen, brother.  One of the first rules of firearms safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.  I don't believe a person should even carry a gun unless he has made up his mind ahead of time that he will shoot to kill if the situation warrants it.  If you're not willing to pull the trigger, don't carry a gun.  Period.
> 
> As for "non-injurious" SD tactics, I have little interest in such things.  Maybe I'm just a barbarian but if anybody attacks me, my goal is to injure them as badly as I can as quickly as I can and get the hell out of there before his buddies have time to react.  I'll deal with the cops later.



That's good in general, but lets say that someday grandpa gets dementia and starts assaulting grandma, not because he wants to hurt anyone, but because he's out of his mind.......how are you going to control him?  I'm going to assume you're going to use ONLY the level of force necessary to restrain him.

There are always situations where we want to be able to only use the level of force necessary to restrain, not to cause undue physical injury.........these types of situations aren't always 'bad guys'.  It can be the neighbor having an insulin reaction lashing out uncontrollably.


----------



## blackxpress (Sep 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That's good in general, but lets say that someday grandpa gets dementia and starts assaulting grandma, not because he wants to hurt anyone, but because he's out of his mind.......how are you going to control him?  I'm going to assume you're going to use ONLY the level of force necessary to restrain him.
> 
> There are always situations where we want to be able to only use the level of force necessary to restrain, not to cause undue physical injury.........these types of situations aren't always 'bad guys'.  It can be the neighbor having an insulin reaction lashing out uncontrollably.



Depends.  How good of shape is Grandpa in?  Does he have a weapon?  I'm not going to let him kill Grandma (or me) if I can help it.  I'll choke him out if I can.  Otherwise, too bad for Grandpa.


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 12, 2009)

Joab said:


> Well, that's the way I have always been trained. They may be right you may be right. Thanks for the input.


He's speaking from professional experience, and I suspect a great deal more training than you have.  And he's right.  You are NOT justified in shooting if the presentation of the weapon eliminates the deadly threat.  I'm not saying "wait 3 seconds and see..." but that you have to be alert enough to assess the threat as you draw and respond, because the situation will change every millisecond the encounter lasts.  

Your goal and desire is quite admirable.  But the reality of a violent encounter is seen in my signature line, by Rory Miller.  He's stated it so well I cannot restate it effectively.

If you've learned to punch the head, you can punch the shoulder instead.  If you've learned to take out the knee with a kick, you can change that target to the calf or thigh, if it fits your goals of the moment.  If you lack this control, you're no better than an animal or a spring-loaded bear trap, with no ability to differentiate your response to the situation.  And I don't think that's the case, by the questions you ask.  The techniques of the Bando Monk System are less harmful by their target choice -- not by their nature.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 13, 2009)

blackxpress said:


> Depends.  How good of shape is Grandpa in?  Does he have a weapon?  I'm not going to let him kill Grandma (or me) if I can help it.  I'll choke him out if I can.  Otherwise, too bad for Grandpa.



How much force you actually use will depend on the threat, you should use the level of force necessary to stop, but the real point is that I would hope that the complete disregard for his safety statement wouldn't apply in those situations.......somewhere in the back of your mind should be in that situation that we do have a regard for grandpa's safety, where we might not the methhead scrotum that is sticking a gun in to our rib cage.  It's not always good guys/bad guys.

At the same time some folks buy it........but not all those who we might have to restrain have actually bought it, and morally, if not necessarily legally, we have an obligation to show some more due regard for those individuals who's actions aren't really of the free will type, if we can do so without harming ourselves or others.


----------



## blackxpress (Sep 13, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> How much force you actually use will depend on the threat, you should use the level of force necessary to stop, but the real point is that I would hope that the complete disregard for his safety statement wouldn't apply in those situations.......somewhere in the back of your mind should be in that situation that we do have a regard for grandpa's safety, where we might not the methhead scrotum that is sticking a gun in to our rib cage.  It's not always good guys/bad guys.
> 
> At the same time some folks buy it........but not all those who we might have to restrain have actually bought it, and morally, if not necessarily legally, we have an obligation to show some more due regard for those individuals who's actions aren't really of the free will type, if we can do so without harming ourselves or others.



Point well taken and I agree, of course.  But getting back to your Grandpa scenario, both of my grandfathers were big, strong men even in their later years.  My paternal grandfather was especially big and strong.  I can't imagine having to fight him.  He was a rough customer.  If he would've ever gone out of his mind and gone on a violent rampage I can't think of any non-injurious techniques that I could use to bring him under control.  I've trained a good bit of Jujitsu and do know a fair number of submission holds, takedowns, etc. and. realistically, I just can't see any of them working in that situation.  When the adrenaline starts pumping and people's lives are on the line small joint manipulations are mighty hard to pull off.  It will probably come down to who's bigger, stronger, faster and hits the hardest.  That would be me.  Much as I would hate to do it i would hurt him and hurt him bad if that's what it took.

Remember, the original poster was looking for a martial art that doesn't contain that element.  As far as I'm concerned any such martial art would not be worth much.


----------



## Xinglu (Sep 13, 2009)

All defensive techniques cause injury to one degree or another - even pain compliance.  Pain means some injury is occurring - even if it is minor and easily recovered from.  With that said, pain compliance generally works if you have numbers to back you up (LEO) or only have one opponent (unlikely now days).  If faced with opponents that don't feel pain or out numbered it will be necessary to take those compliance methods into serious injury by damaging the tendons ligaments and bones by torquing them hard and fast.  This can end threats but causes serious damage.  

I would argue that any art that does not give you the ability to end a threat quickly by disabling your opponent is not worth much.  Fortunately, I don't know of a single art that doesn't have this potential so I don't have to hurt anyone's feelings.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 14, 2009)

blackxpress said:


> Point well taken and I agree, of course.  But getting back to your Grandpa scenario, both of my grandfathers were big, strong men even in their later years.  My paternal grandfather was especially big and strong.  I can't imagine having to fight him.  He was a rough customer.  If he would've ever gone out of his mind and gone on a violent rampage I can't think of any non-injurious techniques that I could use to bring him under control.  I've trained a good bit of Jujitsu and do know a fair number of submission holds, takedowns, etc. and. realistically, I just can't see any of them working in that situation.  When the adrenaline starts pumping and people's lives are on the line small joint manipulations are mighty hard to pull off.  It will probably come down to who's bigger, stronger, faster and hits the hardest.  That would be me.  Much as I would hate to do it i would hurt him and hurt him bad if that's what it took.
> 
> Remember, the original poster was looking for a martial art that doesn't contain that element.  As far as I'm concerned any such martial art would not be worth much.



That much I agree with........the only difference is some people you don't care if you hurt, some people you do.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 14, 2009)

It is probably just my smart *** nature, but, I have to ask:
Non injurious, humane self defense? Where's the fun in that?


----------



## Deaf Smith (Sep 14, 2009)

Joab said:


> *Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?*
> 
> *Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like. *


 
Yes there is Joab to not injure your attacker in a permanently way.


You have a choice. (1) you must learn to reject worldly goods. Live in poverty. Give your shirt to those who ask regardless of why they want it. Accept whatever torment they do to you even unto death. Either do that or (2) move to an uninhabited island and never come back.

Either of these methods will not injure your opponent permanently. They may get bruised knuckles from punching you, or pulled muscles from kicking you or even hurt their feelings when you move away, but you will not hurt them permanently.

Deaf


----------



## tallgeese (Sep 14, 2009)

If and when it comes to defending one's self, non-injury to my attacker is the last thing on my mind.  Respond appropriatly to the force give, and let the chips fall.  If you're response is reasonable you'll be fine in the aftermath.

Worrying over the attacker will get you hurt.


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 15, 2009)

Active avoidance and evasion would be ones best bet if they did not want to cause any physical harm...  once it gets to the point where physical means are needed for compliance, one should be full and well ready to be as unfair as possible becuase you never know what thier true intentions are...A simple altercation can go to anti-social and then full speed to asocial in a heart beat...   One minute you are getting complicance without "injurous force" and the next minute you are being stabbed or geeting stomped by his buddies...   
Trying to get compliance without real force only really applies if you are bigger and stronger... Try putting a guy 2x your size in some form of restraint or control maneuver....  not happening.   

I stay away from physicality on anything that doesnt warrant them getting hurt...    I can either subtract myself completely or use "verbal force"... if these dont work and its hands on time someone is getting hurt and I plan on being as unfair as possible...   
I have been in situations in which the opposition beat themselves and I never had to touch them...  often times they swung and charged and foamed at the mouth with anger but just couldnt get to me and it required no physical force other than evading...


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 16, 2009)

I would like to add that not all "injuries" are permanently disabling or life threatening...  but... all injuries are the same with the neurological/physiological response... and that disrupting function and keeping them busy while you continue your work...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 16, 2009)

It may not be a popular opinion, but in my experience there's no such animal. 

If we're talking about true self defense, any effort you make that is not focused and violent only serves to give the attacker another opportunity to hurt you and increase the odds against you. 

Unless you can read minds, you must take any threat made against you seriously. To do less increases the risk of personal harm or worse. If someone tells you they're going to kill you and you dismiss it, then who is to blame when you find yourself in the IC unit? 

You have the right and freedom to choose not to take a threat seriously, I do not deny anyone that right but I also have the right to protect myself from percieved threats with action that I deem gives me the best chances of survival. I don't like to gamble so I prefer really good odds. 

Therefore, given no alternative but physical confrontation, I will give 100% effort into hurting and eliminating a threat. To do less tilts the scales in the attacker's favor.


----------



## MJS (Sep 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> It may not be a popular opinion, but in my experience there's no such animal.
> 
> If we're talking about true self defense, any effort you make that is not focused and violent only serves to give the attacker another opportunity to hurt you and increase the odds against you.
> 
> ...


 
Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"  

Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL.   But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 16, 2009)

MJS said:


> Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"
> 
> Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL. But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.


 
The situation will in part dictate my reaction, so no...I probably wouldn't take somebody's eyeball for pushing me. LOL 

...but they may not ever be able to breathe through thier nose again. :angel:
My point is that I don't believe there is a "non injurious, humane" way to truely defend yourself effectively. 

Like I said, I know it's not the most popular position to have...but I don't like taking unnecessary chances. 

I am a firm believer in personal responsibility so when no option is available (notice in my above post I mentioned when physical confrontation is unavoidable) and they knowingly and without coercion decided to become a threat to me...well then...they also freely chose the consequences. 

I don't have the time or inclination to play paddy-cakes. I'm too old and my joints give me enough pain without risking further injury. I'm putting you down hard and fast. 

As Joe Lansdale says, "Hit hard, hit fast, head to the house." Works for me. I'll leave you younger more idealistic folks to worry about whether you used too much force on a threat or not. LOL


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 16, 2009)

MJS said:


> Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"
> 
> Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL. But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.


 
Our previous back and forths MJS have caused me to take a second look at "injuries" and I have since found myself on both sides....  The situation is the only true dictator of what teh level of force would be...  
I can no longer look at all injuries as mortal or permanently debilitating becuase not all confrontations and conflicts warrant it...  I was forced to instill the fact that all injuries are the same in the sense that it interrupts the neurological and physiological system...  but not all injuries are the same in how,when and where  they are applied...   
Abroken rib may be appropriate whereas a crushed trachea may not and vice versa... 
There are no safe targets but it does not have to be deadly to be useful... 
The goal is trauma that changes function..


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 16, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> The goal is trauma that changes function..


 
The goal is to go home in one piece. 

_"In the end it matters not who is right, it matters who is left."_ - SGM Ed Parker.


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 16, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> The goal is to go home in one piece.
> 
> _"In the end it matters not who is right, it matters who is left."_ - SGM Ed Parker.


 
Understood and for most that is the case... but its what you do in those conflicting moments that will determine wether you will be eating with a fork or from a straw so to me the the priority  is what is most imminent.
We all want to go home in one piece but first we have to get in there , get to work at causing effects in the opposition and get the f--- out of there....  then you can go home or to the bar or wherever you want...  you earned it


----------



## MJS (Sep 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> The situation will in part dictate my reaction, so no...I probably wouldn't take somebody's eyeball for pushing me. LOL
> 
> ...but they may not ever be able to breathe through thier nose again. :angel:
> My point is that I don't believe there is a "non injurious, humane" way to truely defend yourself effectively.
> ...


 
Yes, I see your point.   Someone will be hurt, hopefully it'll be the other guy.  I was just saying that we should be able to control, dictate, etc. for lack of better words, what we do.    Don't get me wrong...personally, I'd have no issues with giving a nice hard elbow to the face.   I'm not going to try for a lock on someone who follows me into the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off.  

I think we're pretty much on the same page.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> It may not be a popular opinion, but in my experience there's no such animal.
> 
> If we're talking about true self defense, any effort you make that is not focused and violent only serves to give the attacker another opportunity to hurt you and increase the odds against you.
> 
> ...



And ultimately the degree of injury to the attacker is directly proportional to how much he wants to be injured.  If not at all he should refrain from attacking you.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 17, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And ultimately the degree of injury to the attacker is directly proportional to how much he wants to be injured. If not at all he should refrain from attacking you.


 
Exactly.

I don't like the idea of having any of my bones broken, my nose bloodied, my vision impaired, my knees further damaged, etc, etc, etc... so I don't instigate fights or threaten people. 

So, I feel with that taken into consideration anyone that instigates a fight or threatens me must not mind. LOL


----------



## BLACK LION (Sep 17, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I don't like the idea of having any of my bones broken, my nose bloodied, my vision impaired, my knees further damaged, etc, etc, etc... so I don't instigate fights or threaten people.
> 
> So, I feel with that taken into consideration anyone that instigates a fight or threatens me must not mind. LOL


 
There is a good way to look at it...  

 funny....   but true...


----------

