# Tae Kwon Do obsolete for Self Defense



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

Got your attention? : )

One thing that occasionally goes through my mind is that Tae Kwon Do is a very hard striking, brutal art when it comes to application of the techniques.  When we talk about 'traditional' Tae Kwon Do here, we talk about the Korean military being feared for their deadly skills. Tae Kwon Do is not about control and submission, it's about damage and destruction.  It's about disabling or killing an enemy combatant before they kill you

Now, in reading various threads about practical application of self-defense, one thing that stands out to me is an emphasis on de-escalation, and a minimal response. LEO's and bouncers and such talk about (the need for) controlling the situation and the person, not about rib cracking sidekicks.  About legalities and repercussions, not ridge-hands to the trachea 

We talk about the effectiveness of traditional hard-core Tae Kwon Do, but the examples we often draw from are from a military application, which is not the environment most of us find ourselves in.

So the question that occurs to me is two fold.  One is "self-defense" for Tae Kwon Do a misnomer for the sake of acceptability, that Tae Kwon Do is simply and really about 'personal combat' and entailed in that is a significant offensive component.  Two is... given the legal and social context most of us find ourselves in, does that render Tae Kwon Do obsolete as a truly practical means of self-defense?


----------



## exile (Jun 9, 2008)

Good post, FF. Two things occur to me off the bat:

(i) a Maserati may be happiest when accelerating to 200mph in ten seconds or so, but it's _still_ possible to drive it legally at highway or town speeds... you have to use judgment. I think it's the same thing here.

(ii) the flip side is, a grappling/controlling art still leaves you with the problem: what do you do with the assailant once he's under your control? If you disengage without damaging him, there's an excellent chance he'll come back at you. Whether it's a control/grapple strategy or a linear striking one, you still reach the critical point when you have to decide how to keep the guy out of the fight long enough to make your getaway. And aikido, jiujitsu or hapkido are just as capable of doing major damage to an attacker as TKD, karate or San Soo. Maybe different types of damage, but damage that could land you in court nonetheless, if you use them to force a 'window of safe withdrawal' after bringing down your assailant. And if you _don't_ do that, you've thrown away your greatest advantage and are back at square one, except now (i) he's even more pissed off at you and (ii) he knows what kind of stuff you might do and will be primed to evade it. So you'll just have to do it again, under more difficult circumstances, always a bad idea.

So it's not just TKD's problem&#8212;it's built into the nature of street violence. There comes a point when you have to damage someone to keep them from coming back at you... and that's the point at issue, no matter _how_ you do it, eh?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2008)

Deescalation only works _before_ they attack.  Once they attack, I am a firm believer in disabling my opponent, _not_ deescalation.  I have no interest in trying to figure out what to do with the guy I've just grappled into a pretzel and hope that he doesn't get a hand free to pull a knife.  Nor do I have any interest in maintaining such close proximity to an assailant.  No, I want him down and unable to continue, preferably unconscious.  TKD works quite well for this.

Daniel


----------



## Kacey (Jun 9, 2008)

Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to - this is where focus becomes important.  For example:  someone attacks me.  Based on the nature of the attack, I may:  a) Punch an inch in front of the person's nose; b) Punch the surface of the person's nose; c) Punch an inch behind the surface of the person's nose.  Which one I will do depends on the situation - but in all cases, it will be a full-speed, full-power punch; only the target changes, not the technique - but the _outcome_ of that technique will vary depending on the situation.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

_Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to_

I guess part of my thinking in this is that,  in legal and social contexts, the distinction may not be relevant.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> _Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to_
> 
> I guess part of my thinking in this is that,  in legal and social contexts, the distinction may not be relevant.



As I said, it depends on the situation.  That's why I feel it is important for instructors to teach proportionate response to various scenarios.


----------



## zDom (Jun 9, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Just because you can punch an inch (or more) into an attacker's body (with corresponding damage) doesn't mean that you have to - this is where focus becomes important.  For example:  someone attacks me.  Based on the nature of the attack, I may:  a) Punch an inch in front of the person's nose; b) Punch the surface of the person's nose; c) Punch an inch behind the surface of the person's nose.  Which one I will do depends on the situation - but in all cases, it will be a full-speed, full-power punch; only the target changes, not the technique - but the _outcome_ of that technique will vary depending on the situation.



Exactly. I knew I had reached another level in my taekwondo not when I could hit HARD (which I got the hang of relatively soon) but when I could do what Kacey is talking about, when I got that ability to dial up or dial down the level of contact with minute adjustments in penetration.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 9, 2008)

zDom said:


> Exactly. I knew I had reached another level in my taekwondo not when I could hit HARD (which I got the hang of relatively soon) but when I could do what Kacey is talking about, when I got that ability to dial up or dial down the level of contact with minute adjustments in penetration.



Yes, but if someone wishes to injure you, don't take thought about that -- you give them FULL CONTACT!  

No one has to go around looking for trouble -- no one should do that.  But, if someone attacks, then you give it back to them -- BAM!  

If they wish to have the TKD, then that is what they will have -- FULL POWER!  So, then, we see that this can displace or give injury to the opponent -- they should not mess with the TKD player!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

I think there is something being missed.  Yes, it shows good personal and physical control to be able to punch 'partially'

However, I do not think  you wold find much sympathy in telling the police officer "I punched him, but not as hard as I could've"  Or the judge.  Or trying to articulate the nuance to the jury, or to opposing lawyer.   Even if you don't face assault charges for your actions, you can face civil charges brought by whomever you punched.

In a civil, social sense, a punch is a very rude and anti-social action.  In a legal sense, even when justified in a self-defense scenario, it is already at a pretty high level of escalation for an encounter.  Regardless of how hard or how much control you used in the strike

To say nothing of going up from there into elbows and kicks.

A comparison would be that Tae Kwon Do is like an M-16.  Designed for efficient but devastating usage in combat.  Can you use it for self-defense?  Well, sure.  Should you?  Probably not.  Very effective.... but generally frowned upon.  Which is my thoughts about Tae Kwon Do.  It's not really geared around self-defense, if you look at the techniques.  Only indirectly in the sense of "the best defense is a good offense".  But it's really designed to be a combat system, which is why I wonder if it is not somewhat anachronistic in our society today, or at least somewhat awkward for the average peaceful person


----------



## exile (Jun 9, 2008)

Well, think of it this way: any TMA is really an appeal of last resort&#8212;when the only alternative to doing a certain amount of damage is getting seriously damaged yourself, or seeing a loved one injured, maybe very badly. It's for situations in which you have no choice, when nothing else is going to work. Such situations are probably not all that common, but they do occur, whether we like it or not.

Self-protection involves many other factors, but when these fail, and all that's left is self-defense, competence in combat can mean the difference between life and death, or devastating injury. The bottom line, I think, is that many people are willing to act on their own behalf, if things get to that point, with everything in the arsenal, and worry later on about the consequences. You only worry about consequences if you're _alive_, which is the crucial thing. Sure, you want to minimize the repurcussions... but stayin' alive is the number one mission: without that, nothing else is relevant.


----------



## zDom (Jun 9, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Yes, but if someone wishes to injure you, don't take thought about that -- you give them FULL CONTACT!
> 
> No one has to go around looking for trouble -- no one should do that.  But, if someone attacks, then you give it back to them -- BAM!
> 
> If they wish to have the TKD, then that is what they will have -- FULL POWER!  So, then, we see that this can displace or give injury to the opponent -- they should not mess with the TKD player!



Wishing to injure me and having a good chance of doing so are not always the same though.

For example, what if some skinny unarmed 15-year old drunk kid decides to attack me? Should I crush his face? Nah, there's no need. Even if I wasn't found guilty by the courts, I'm not the type of person who could live with that.

The more concerned about my safety I am, the more someone attacking me should be about theirs.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 9, 2008)

zDom said:


> Wishing to injure me and having a good chance of doing so are not always the same though.
> 
> For example, what if some skinny unarmed 15-year old drunk kid decides to attack me? Should I crush his face? Nah, there's no need. Even if I wasn't found guilty by the courts, I'm not the type of person who could live with that.
> 
> The more concerned about my safety I am, the more someone attacking me should be about theirs.


No, some skinny unarmed 15-year old drunk kid is not the threat.  This is not a threat to personal safety.  But if multiple attackers come, or if only one attacker with some knife or even a club -- oh well -- that is their choice, not your choice.  You must defend!  This is not nice, after all, this defense.


----------



## StuartA (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> One thing that occasionally goes through my mind is that Tae Kwon Do is a very hard striking, brutal art when it comes to application of the techniques. When we talk about 'traditional' Tae Kwon Do here, we talk about the Korean military being feared for their deadly skills. Tae Kwon Do is not about control and submission, it's about damage and destruction. It's about disabling or killing an enemy combatant before they kill you


Can go with that.. nutshell really!



> Now, in reading various threads about practical application of self-defense, one thing that stands out to me is an emphasis on de-escalation, and a minimal response.[/quotes]
> Thats the area of Self-Protection.. not TKD! TKD techniques are the end game IMO!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kacey (Jun 9, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> Yes, but if someone wishes to injure you, don't take thought about that -- you give them FULL CONTACT!
> 
> No one has to go around looking for trouble -- no one should do that.  But, if someone attacks, then you give it back to them -- BAM!
> 
> If they wish to have the TKD, then that is what they will have -- FULL POWER!  So, then, we see that this can displace or give injury to the opponent -- they should not mess with the TKD player!



BUT - there are situations in which I would rather at least attempt to scare the person off first.  For example - some years ago, when I still went to bars with a friend of mine, this guy hit on me; I said no; he wouldn't quit, and followed us out when we left.  He grabbed my wrist and wouldn't let go, so I got loose myself (releases can be _so_ effective!) - so he grabbed me again.  With my other hand, I punched once, full speed, full power, and stopped on the surface of his nose - then I offered to do it again, but an inch behind his nose instead of on the surface of it.  He left.  What I chose to do was highly effective; nothing further was needed.  I could have broken his nose on the first shot, but I didn't need to - so I didn't. The most legally defensible situation is the one where you do the least necessary to ensure your safety - and that's what I did.  Why should I have done more? 

I'm sure some of the other posters on the board can think of similar situations, where beating the crap out of someone was not the appropriate response, but nonetheless, MA skills were appropriate at something less than deadly force.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

> Thats because both LEO's and bouncers are a 3rd person and hence need restraint as thats their job.. for the person directly involved its a case of kill or be killed IMO.. my job is to survive!



That's a very important distinction I thought of when typing the original but choose to leave out to see if it would come up in discussion.

As a whole, I should've added a question mark to the thread title as it was a not meant to be a statement, but to be a question based on thoughts going through my head.  Not meant to declare a belief that Tae Kwon Do is obsolete but just asking about the role of a combat art in modern society


----------



## StuartA (Jun 9, 2008)

Kacey said:


> BUT - there are situations in which I would rather at least attempt to scare the person off first. For example


Kacey.. first of all, let me say Im 110% please this worked out for you. second of all let me say, if tat were my partner Id be hopping mad at her for soing the same... You say 





> Why should I have done more?


.. and Ill tell you why.. because you were lucky! Lucky that it was just some idoit, rather than a physco!  Please indulge me whilst I edit your story for a "what could have happen senerio" (my edits in itallics):


> - some years ago, when I still went to bars with a friend of mine, this guy hit on me; I said no; he wouldn't quit, and followed us out when we left. He grabbed my wrist and wouldn't let go, so I got loose myself (releases can be _so_ effective!) - so he grabbed me again. With my other hand, I punched once, full speed, full power, and stopped on the surface of his nose - _then he stabbed me with his other hand and whilst I screamed out in agony, he punched me in the face and he dragged me down an alley and ....._  - and that's what I did. Why should I have done more?


Cos now your dying and have been -insert whatever as I think Ive been graphic enough!  Like I said, you were lucky and Im please you were, but I dont place the protection of my family on luck!



> I'm sure some of the other posters on the board can think of similar situations, where beating the crap out of someone was not the appropriate response, but nonetheless, MA skills were appropriate at something less than deadly force.


Its not beating the crap out of someone.. when you can safely escape, thats enough.. if its 1 punch or 50 punches.. it makes no difference.. safe is safe as sure as dead is dead!

Apologies for being so graphic.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Not meant to declare a belief that Tae Kwon Do is obsolete but just asking about the role of a combat art in modern society


 
I figured that.. and as I said, I believe its even more relevant today, than it was at its inception, as violent crime is much much more!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Jun 9, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> No, some skinny unarmed 15-year old drunk kid is not the threat.


 
Take yourself out the picture and add your wife and child.. is he a threat now?

Thats how I look at SD!

Stuart


----------



## Errant108 (Jun 9, 2008)

Again, this sort of thing makes me wonder how some people train.

No, smashing someone's face in is not always the best option, but you're telling me that Taegwondo is only about smashing people's faces in?  Only about rib-cracking side kicks?

How about a round kick to the thigh with penetration?  A good strike across the nerve tends to dead leg people not conditioned for it real fast (read as:  Muay Thai/Kyokushin/MMA fighters).

Don't wanna bust his nose?  Punch him in the solar plexus & wind him!  

Placing too much emphasis on "this kick must do this, that punch must hit there" tells me that too little time is spent sparring & more time is spent working on dead drills.  You are owned by your system & not owning your system.

If anything, a good TKD self-defense curriculum is all about options.  I can think of plenty of non-lethal, not extremely injurious options provided by TKD.  I can think of plenty of options that will let you drop your attacker and/or disengage, and not leave him broken in a heap for the cops to think that you were the assailant.

And truthfully, all those who keep referencing Korean military training...

If you're not training the way the ROK Marines train, don't ever mention them to justify what you do.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2008)

> No, smashing someone's face in is not always the best option, but you're telling me that Taegwondo is only about smashing people's faces in? Only about rib-cracking side kicks?
> 
> How about a round kick to the thigh with penetration? A good strike across the nerve tends to dead leg people not conditioned for it real fast (read as: Muay Thai/Kyokushin/MMA fighters).
> 
> Don't wanna bust his nose? Punch him in the solar plexus & wind him!



You missed the point in the illustration.  From a social and legal context, once you have struck your adversary, you have crossed a line. Whether you are justified or not in crossing that line is a matter of much consideration of the context and situation.

For many practical application points of view, a punch to the face and a punch to the solar plexus are far different, but that's not the angle I'm looking at from.  From the point of view of "do I go to jail for assault?" or "am I sued in civil court for medical damages?", it's a distinction without a difference


----------



## Errant108 (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> You missed the point in the illustration.  From a social and legal context, once you have struck your adversary, you have crossed a line. Whether you are justified or not in crossing that line is a matter of much consideration of the context and situation.
> 
> For many practical application points of view, a punch to the face and a punch to the solar plexus are far different, but that's not the angle I'm looking at from.  From the point of view of "do I go to jail for assault?" or "am I sued in civil court for medical damages?", it's a distinction without a difference



Then never study martial arts and just be a victim.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 9, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> So the question that occurs to me is two fold. One is "self-defense" for Tae Kwon Do a misnomer for the sake of acceptability, that Tae Kwon Do is simply and really about 'personal combat' and entailed in that is a significant offensive component.


 
Fearless, what the military studies I really do not think is exactly what civilians study as for TKD. And more importantly, what the instructor emphsizes I doubt in the miliary is what the civilian instructors emphasize!

Just like we find 'Olympic' style TKD is not like traditional TKD, so is what the military in Korea study. This is very aken to what the USMC study for their martial arts program is very different than civilian schools (keep in mind they will be wearing all kinds of combat gear that we, or at least me, does not wear!)




FearlessFreep said:


> Two is... given the legal and social context most of us find ourselves in, does that render Tae Kwon Do obsolete as a truly practical means of self-defense?


 
Since TKD has the components of self defense and 'one step sparring', and it's not all sparring techniques, I'd have to say no. No more than any other martial art. Almost none teach legal aspects (Massad Ayoob does but then that's part of defensive shooting.)

TKD, like most orential arts, do not have alot of reality based training as for self defense. They tend to simply do technique instead of social encounters. And as I have found, the social encounter makes one look alot closer as to who is or is not the bad guy(s), how the situation is breaking, what to say/not say, how to keep track of all the players, how to cover ones blind side, etc.... And very very few martial arts have THAT as part of their course, even advanced Dan training.

Deaf


----------



## Kacey (Jun 9, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Kacey.. first of all, let me say Im 110% please this worked out for you. second of all let me say, if tat were my partner Id be hopping mad at her for soing the same... You say .. and Ill tell you why.. because you were lucky! Lucky that it was just some idoit, rather than a physco!  Please indulge me whilst I edit your story for a "what could have happen senerio" (my edits in itallics):
> 
> Cos now your dying and have been -insert whatever as I think Ive been graphic enough!  Like I said, you were lucky and Im please you were, but I dont place the protection of my family on luck!
> 
> ...



Or, of course, you could admit that, instead of being lucky, I actually read the situation correctly.  Sure, I could have beaten his head in... and I could have gone to jail.  Sure, I could have kicked his knees in... and lost a lawsuit that would have taken up my income for the rest of my life.  Or I could do what I did - the minimum necessary to get away, while making sure that he wasn't going to do something else - and then, once I got safely to my car was driving away, it was over.

The thing about "could have" is that, like any situation where one person was present and another was not, you can always second-guess what happened.  But the thing is - _you weren't there_, and _you aren't me_.  What works for a 5'4" female may not work for a 6' male and vice versa; despite the increase of women in the MAs, it's still rather more of a shock when a woman does what I did than when a man does - but it did make the drunken sot realize that I was the wrong person to fool around with.

You want your partner to go to jail and/or get sued for overreacting - that's your choice.  I'd rather avoid either.  That's my choice.  That doesn't make either of us wrong; it makes us different.  

The US is an incredibly sue-happy society, and too many criminals have successfully sued people who hurt them while protecting themselves - and I don't want to be one of them.  I will do the minimum necessary to leave a problem area intact and uninjured as quickly as possible, while remaining fully aware of possible continuing problems, but I am not going to beat the crap out of someone right off the bat because he _might_ do something beyond what he's already done.  That's irresponsible, dangerous, and could just as easily escalate the situation as not going all out to begin with - and much more likely to end in legal action against me, as the person who caused greater bodily harm.  My chances are better because I'm female - but I'd still rather avoid it if I can.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 9, 2008)

At the risk of being scoffed at, I'll share an anecdote. A martial arts master from China in the early 60s is said to have had a disagreement with a giant truck driver on the road. As they pulled over and met, the master reportedly said, 'Too bad, today you die.' The truck driver immediately turned on his heel without a word and went back to his truck.

Now I know this sounds like a line from a bad kung fu movie, and we've all heard fanciful stuff along these lines, but knowing something of the circumstances of this one has always given it the ring of truth to me. So I believe TKD, or whatever TMA, mastered so fully that the practitioner has complete faith in his or her ability over the situation, can actually serve to stave off physical attacks.

Iain Abernethy--a very pragmatic martial artist, by the way--puts it this way: _A person who possesses high skill levels and an unshakable belief in their ability can cause (fear) in their opponents with as little as a glance._ (Bunkai-Jutsu, p. 23). Again, I'd discount this except that I've known a very few people who actually seemed to have this ability. But then, I've lived a long time and met a lot of people.


----------



## Logan (Jun 10, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Iain Abernethy--a very pragmatic martial artist, by the way--puts it this way: _A person who possesses high skill levels and an unshakable belief in their ability can cause (fear) in their opponents with as little as a glance._ (Bunkai-Jutsu, p. 23). Again, I'd discount this except that I've known a very few people who actually seemed to have this ability. But then, I've lived a long time and met a lot of people.


 
What about facing someone high or drunk? Or outnumbered? You'll need more than two eyes to stare down a gang.

With CCTV now in place and all that, I would just adopt a passive pose e.g. hands up (which protects the head) and then floor an aggressor if they don't back down. When footage is looked at by police it is clear that I was an intended victim who first tried to deflate the situation. There is also a distinct psycological advantage to this approach.

If you have to hit somebody to stop an attack, I would give it everything I have. To do  otherwise is to lose an advantage. It brings back the saying "better to be tried by six than carried by 12".


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 10, 2008)

Logan said:


> It brings back the saying "better to be tried by six than carried by 12".


 

Scratch that, reverse it .


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Or, of course, you could admit that, instead of being lucky, I actually read the situation correctly.


Sure. I know of another situation where the guy threw a side kick just in front of someones face and the "wow" factor diffussed the situation. Still, it if was my missus Id still be mad, simply because of what could have happened!



> Sure, I could have beaten his head in... and I could have gone to jail.


Theres a big difference between doing whats needed to protect/defend yourself to beating someones head in. And as far as Im aware, in most countries 1_. A grab is seen as an assault 2. You have the right to physically protect yourself in the realms of reasonable force!_



> The thing about "could have" is that, like any situation where one person was present and another was not, you can always second-guess what happened. But the thing is - _you weren't there_, and _you aren't me_.


Im not saying I am or was and when I look at these things I look in a general self defence context. You offered the story in a discussion about SD.. others will read that story and think "Hmm.. maybe thats the way to go about things like that" - I gave my opinion because I feel its dangerous as a general attitude towards SD. Like I said, Im glad it worked for you and it may well have been a case of doing everything appropriate for the situation.. but as a general way.. its a big no no IMO!



> despite the increase of women in the MAs, it's still rather more of a shock when a woman does what I did than when a man does


Yes and that gives woman a small tactical advantage!



> You want your partner to go to jail and/or get sued for overreacting - that's your choice.


thats preferable for being dead... yes!



> The US is an incredibly sue-happy society, and too many criminals have successfully sued people who hurt them while protecting themselves - and I don't want to be one of them.


Thats unfortunate, but to think of the law when danger is imminent begets defeat!



> I will do the minimum necessary to leave a problem area intact and uninjured as quickly as possible, while remaining fully aware of possible continuing problems, but I am not going to beat the crap out of someone right off the bat because he _might_ do something beyond what he's already done.


Again, theres big difference between 'hit & run' SD tactics and beating the crap out of someone! Theres an incredibly thick line between the two!



> That's irresponsible, dangerous, and could just as easily escalate the situation as not going all out to begin with


Alternatively it could leave you in a much more vunerable position that could have been avoided if someone acted differently from the offset!



> and much more likely to end in legal action against me, as the person who caused greater bodily harm. My chances are better because I'm female - but I'd still rather avoid it if I can.


Well, I hope if anything more serious happens to you, lawsuits are the last thing on your mind!

Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> The US is an incredibly sue-happy society, and too many criminals have successfully sued people who hurt them while protecting themselves - and I don't want to be one of them.


How true, how true, how true.  And what a sad and pathetic comentary on the state of the criminal justice system in our country.

Daniel


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 10, 2008)

I would think that the application of level(s) of force (Kacey & StuartA) would be a worthwhile discussion in it's own right


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 10, 2008)

Logan said:


> What about facing someone high or drunk? Or outnumbered? You'll need more than two eyes to stare down a gang.


All due respect, I think you missed my point--or maybe I didn't state it too well . 

If you take my whole post as a piece, the point I was trying to make is that projecting a certain presence (not really a stare-down) can be enough to discourage bullies--even a group of them. But then, as I said, this is based on my experience and obviously will only ever work for a few truly exceptional people (not saying I'm one). But it _can_ work.


----------



## bluekey88 (Jun 10, 2008)

After reading this entire thread, I declare everyone correct and everyone a winner 

It seems in the case of self-defense...we're talking about the application of use of various tools, be they punches and kicks, or "attitude" or whatever.  All are important and should be in one's SD "toolbox" as it were.  In Kacey's example, she gives a reading of her harrasser and describes how she used a lesser level of force and the tools of surprise and intimidation to deescalate a situation successfully.  Stuart then poses a scneario where that reading of the situation would have been a significant tactical error. 

It all comes down to making an educated guess.  If kacey's right, then an all out onslsught is an incorrect response that ruins ones life.  However, if Stuart's correct, the lesser repsonse is the incorrect response that ruin's one life.  

In the end, when confronted with situations we, as humans, must do what humans do best.  We make a snap judgement based on our knowldge, training, understanding of the situation and then we react.  good self-defrense then trains the body to react apporirately with the approiate level of force (the right tool at the right time).  It all starts though with awareness. Good self defense (be it TKD, Krav Maga, joe's cool mcdojo karate or whatever) is bigger than the physical arts and goes beyond "rules" and guildelines about hwo one should respond to a situation.  

In most respects. those advocating being ready and willign to put a hurting on an attacker are correct.  if you can't strik with intent, you will be at a severe disadvantage in a slef defense sitation.  those arguing for use of levels of force are also correct based on the poitn made earlier.  In the end, each situation must be looked at inidividually and students shoudl be trained to think independently and with awareness at all times so as to maximise the chance the they will make the right decision at the right time.

Here's my story of doing everything wrongt and ti being the right thing...and why I'll NEVER do it again 

I work as a therapist for a large non-profit org that provides residential treatment servbices for adolescents with intellectual disability and behavior disorders.  I was new on the job and getting a handle on what I shoudl be doing (a very over-whelming task).  The first thing I did was start interviewing my new co-workers to learn about my clients.  I figured this info would prove useful in coming up with treatment plans and the like.

Anyways, my most problematic client was a young man I'll call Bill.  Bill was famous for becoming aggressive at the drop of a hat and needing pretty significant pysical restraint (staff only...we don't use mehanical here).  he was also famous for putting staf fon light duty due to his aggression.

In my interviews I learned the following things.  Bill seemed to like the phsyicality of restraints...thus, restraints were reinforcing and should be avoided.  He enjoyed getting management level staff involved and out of their offices in his incidents.  He seemed to target some people over others.  He tended to base his interactions wiht folks off of his initial meeting with them.

So, one day I'm in my office and sorting my stuff when Bill walks in.  This is our first meeting.  I introduce myself and he immediately puts up his fists and saya "Fight."  good therapist that I am i decline and say I'm here to talk, I don't want to fight.  he repeats hsi gesture and psutres even more for me.  Since I think it's hard to do therapy with people that see tyou as someone who will hodl them down and wrestle them, I contine to decline.  Bill leaves.  So far, I'm following the text book here.

A few minutes later, Bill returns, he wants to fight and he is more emphatic.  Now, I have a choice...it was clear by his body language and tone of voice that this was going to escalate.  I SHOULD have called for assistance.  He would've got upset and probably have been restrained by staff (not necessarily by me).  However, knowing that this interaction was going to define our relationship, that any restraint woudl reinforce what was happeneing here and make it more likely to happen in the future...I chose to do all the wrong things.  

I sized him up, wiry, strong, but I had a good 100lbs on him.  I stood there, I let him hit me,  He punched me HARD in the chest.  I stood there.  I said again "I'm not going to fight."  He hit me again, harder (it bruised me).  I again didn't do anything.  After a third punch, Bill's shoulders slumped.  It was like he deflated a bit.  He sulked out of my office.  In seven years I've only been involved in two physical incidents with him and I'm one of the few people that can talk him down when he gets going. he is still one of my most difficult cases, but by doing the wrong thing I got the right outcome.  

Had I not had the info I had, my instict, my training....I would have follwoed the "rules" and made all the wrong choices.  HOWEVER, the rules tend to exist because they cover a majority of cases it was just that this wasn't one of them.  

What has this to do with TKD?  I can take a hit.  I can read someone intentions better in a conflict.  Good self defense means knowing what to do, but also having the awareness to do what is necessary (even if it "breaks" the rules) at the time.

Peace,
Erik


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Kacey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Having the _right_ to do something doesn't mean it is _right_ to do it.  That is why we have the power of judgment.

The perp has the _right_ to hire an attorney and drag KC into court and try to convince a judge that Kacey's a bad-*** blackbelt who was just itching for the chance to beat on the first drunk she saw.  

And then they would present a handful of witness testimonies to bring into question whether there was really any grab or if the poor drunk was just trying to defend himself.  

And then they would demonstrate that the beating she gave went far beyond exercising her right to "protect herself within the realms of reasonable force" and instead was in the realm of dealing out punishment--something she does *not* have the right to do.

Unable to contest the "Assault with Intent" felony charge effectively, Kacey finds herself having to plead guilty to the lesser, just-as-bogus (but still very serious) misdemeanor of "Negligent Infliction of Harm to an Idiot within City Limits". 

Next Kacey gets a call from the place where she holds practices saying that their liability insurance underwriters won't permit them to rent space to teachers who have assault convictions.  Then she learns that the judge arbitrarily decided to add her name to the Sex Offenders Registry to prevent her from instructing minors.

Then she gets dragged into civil court where the perp tries to collect for medical expenses and mental anguish.

I'm not saying that it's always best to respond with only minimal stopping force--especially since it's seldom clear what level that is.  (And avoidance purely for the sake of personal convenience is a piss-poor reason for not doing something that you know is right.)  But every situation is different and proper course of action must be determined individually.

Dan


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

Well.. in that case Dan, I suggest next time anyone attacks or assaults us or our loved ones we just put our hands in our pockets, lie on the floor and let them get on with it! God forbid telling anyone to protect themsleves.. its all just to risky!


Stuart


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 10, 2008)

> God forbid telling anyone to protect themsleves.. its all just to risky!



Look in the Self Defense forum at the number of times when someone says "this happened to me and this is how I defended myself" and how many times the reply is "you got lucky, you should've just run away"


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Well.. in that case Dan, I suggest next time anyone attacks or assaults us or our loved ones we just put our hands in our pockets, lie on the floor and let them get on with it! God forbid telling anyone to protect themsleves.. its all just to risky!



Who said anything about not protecting oneself?  Throwing a warning strike to the skin of the opponent's nose with a verbal caution about what the follow-up will be like or even brandishing a 9mm and telling them to get lost *is* protecting oneself.  In some situations, it might be a grossly insufficient means of protection; in others, it might be grossly excessive.  Children in the schoolyard may not be able to tell the difference, but hopefully _we_ can.

The ability to assess a situation is one of the most important SD skills there is.

Dan


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

A fox and a cat were sitting on a hill. A fox was saying what he'd do if the hounds ever chased him.. he might scratch them, might bite them, might run down a hole, might hide in a bush and lodas of other different options. The cat looked sad and said he only knew one way and that was to run up a tree!

The conversation changed and the day went on.

Suddenly a trumpet sounded, and lots of barking was heard in the near distance. It was the 'hunt'!

The barking drew nearer, the fox and the cat both got scared.. and suddenly the cat did the only thing it knew and ran up a tree, whilst the fox debated on what course of action to take.. should I do this, should I do that.. he couldnt decide... and in his hesitatation the hounds caught and chewed him to pieces!




GlassJaw said:


> The ability to assess a situation is one of the most important SD skills there is.
> 
> Dan


Oh I agree.. but thats all before it becomes physical.. when it becomes physical there should be a solid gameplan in place.. not decision making, but action. Physical altercations happen in fractions of a second, most people dont think that fast (kinda like the fox)!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Look in the Self Defense forum at the number of times when someone says "this happened to me and this is how I defended myself" and how many times the reply is "you got lucky, you should've just run away"


 
I think you may have missed my point!

BTW.. running away is a good solid option and preferable to physical altercation, but that area wasnt on par with the OP.

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey,

Out of interest.. would you advise others to do as you did should they find themselves in a similar situation?

Cheers,

Stuart


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 10, 2008)

GlassJaw said:


> The ability to assess a situation is one of the most important SD skills there is.
> 
> Dan


Maybe _the_ most important. As we advance in the arts, we should be able to go beyond all/nothing, either/or type of thinking to a continuum/scale way of appraising risk.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Kacey,
> 
> Out of interest.. would you advise others to do as you did should they find themselves in a similar situation?
> 
> ...


I would advise others to evaluate the situation for themselves and determine the appropriate course of action - which may be what I did, and it may not.  As I said, only those actually present in the situation can determine the appropriate response.  In addition, for different people in identical situations, the response will nonetheless be different, as each person will bring different abilities, experiences, and perspectives to the same situation.  I would not, however, _ever_ recommend jumping immediately to the most drastic solution, as you seem to be doing - if only because I have been advised against it by a number of people, including one my students who is a judge, and suggested a warning strike (either of the type I used or something that makes it similarly evident that the person being attacked is not a pushover) before doing damage beyond the level of bruises - depending, of course, on the severity of the situation.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 10, 2008)

One thing that hasn't been dealt with in any depth here (or I've missed it entirely) is the subject of knowing the law as it applies to SD.  It is important to know the law regarding self defense, paricularly as it applies in one's state, as SD laws vary from state to state.  It is a reality.  Many far reaching consequences have been laid out.  Being aware of them is only sensible.  

Now having said that, I will do whatever is necessary to survive an attack; if I wind up with legal hassles, then I've survived to see the court room and can take it from there.  But I still am aware of how the law views SD in my area; I prefer not to have any surprises after the fact.

Daniel


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> BUT - there are situations in which I would rather at least attempt to scare the person off first.  For example - some years ago, when I still went to bars with a friend of mine, this guy hit on me; I said no; he wouldn't quit, and followed us out when we left.  He grabbed my wrist and wouldn't let go, so I got loose myself (releases can be _so_ effective!) - so he grabbed me again.  With my other hand, I punched once, full speed, full power, and stopped on the surface of his nose - then I offered to do it again, but an inch behind his nose instead of on the surface of it.  He left.  What I chose to do was highly effective; nothing further was needed.  I could have broken his nose on the first shot, but I didn't need to - so I didn't. The most legally defensible situation is the one where you do the least necessary to ensure your safety - and that's what I did.  Why should I have done more?
> 
> I'm sure some of the other posters on the board can think of similar situations, where beating the crap out of someone was not the appropriate response, but nonetheless, MA skills were appropriate at something less than deadly force.


Okay, I wish to respond to this.  Now, I am 1st Dan, so that is that.  But, I say that I would prefer to strike the target if it comes to this, I will not prefer to feint.   No.  Now, that being said, I can strike to PUSH the target away -- I can DISPLACE the other individual rather than to BREAK the target -- all here know what I am saying.

But none of this control to this extent.  I am not so capable of relying on that to impress my attacker.  No, if I succeed, they will either get the injury, or at least -- in the case of someone that is not so much of a threat, they are just not in their right mind -- then -- I would prefer to at least PUSH the person back (or push ME back if their mass is so much greater -- i care not -- I wish to get the DISTANCE to my favour).

Then -- then you give a good kick -- one that will seperate the two of us, and then I can run, or quickly assess if they have some friends.  You see, I have a lot of concern about what I might not know at the moment -- are other people coming?  I wish to GET OUT of the situation as quickly as possible, since this is not freesparring we are talking about,  I have a concern over danger -- I want to get OUT of the danger -- "off the 'X'" if you will, as quickly as possible.

If someone withstands the broken nose, well, I will tell the Judge!   I will address this later, but I do not have this much confidence in my technique to do as you did.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

The same principle of course applies to moving a friend -- what if the friend is about to get hit, say, by a mass falling.  You don't have time to explain, you have to MOVE their body.  TKD is perfect for this.  Move them without breaking the ribs.  No problem.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

I'm posting too much, but I'll add -- we are taught CONTROL as well.  Control of the technique, control of the mind, maybe even control of the personality.

After all, when we de-dora-dra and we turn around, we look first, right?  We LOOK at what we are blocking or striking first.  We don't turn around blindly.  No.  We SEE the target first.  So, this same mind is also here, of course.  We keep our senses about us and not panic.  This is ideal!  Control.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Oh I agree.. but thats all before it becomes physical.. when it becomes physical there should be a solid gameplan in place.. not decision making, but action. *Physical altercations happen in fractions of a second,* most people dont think that fast (kinda like the fox)!
> 
> Stuart



This in bold is what gives me such pause!  I fear some grappler taking me to the ground!  I am not versed in grappling enough to break the hold!  *IF* -- and this is a big "if" -- I am engaged by someone with some MALICIOUS intention, then I have to act quickly to keep my distance (and my stance! -- not go to the ground!).    

The lawyers can sort it out later, regrettably, but then again, I don't go about looking for trouble, so that is in my favour -- I don't have a dangerous job, don't go out at night to dangerous places, and so on.  I'm thinking my odds are good that I will never be attacked.


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I would advise others to evaluate the situation for themselves and determine the appropriate course of action - which may be what I did, and it may not.


So you would advise that as one of the possible options? Sorry, and though it worked for you, in the general scheme of things relating to SD.. that would be bad advice and liable to get someone killed!



> I would not, however, _ever_ recommend jumping immediately to the most drastic solution, as you seem to be doing


You seem to have missed my point from each post.. I do not see striking them as the most drastic solution.. or _'beating the crap out of them'_ .. I can think of many things much more drastic than that.. its not drastic, its basic SD principles!



> - if only because I have been advised against it by a number of people


Thats interesting, because my opinions are based on the Self protection courses I teach for a living (both as part of my TKD classes and seperate courses) and this entails finding out about the law and other reviews of policies relating to self defence and self protection... one of which was advice given by the then, UK Police Commisioner (ie. the top UK Police Officer who advises the home office) and after his review he was asked what the response would be if a civilian was attacked and his advice was to forget the law and hit them and keep hitting them until they were physically unable to fight back and you could get away safely!  So my advice isnt personal opinion (well it is too) its also ratified at the highest levels.

Perhaps the US legal system has gone too crazy as you say, but where Im from, pre-emptive striking is justifiable if you are threatened, even without being grabbed, as long as its based on the belief that to do less would put yourself in further danger, which is part of the concept of _reasonable force_.



> including one my students who is a judge, and suggested a warning strike (either of the type I used or something that makes it similarly evident that the person being attacked is not a pushover) before doing damage beyond the level of bruises - depending, of course, on the severity of the situation.


The law is often the martial artists second enemy! (A saying Ive heard from a few self protection instructors)!

Stuart


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> This in bold is what gives me such pause! I fear some grappler taking me to the ground! I am not versed in grappling enough to break the hold! *IF* -- and this is a big "if" -- I am engaged by someone with some MALICIOUS intention, then I have to act quickly to keep my distance (and my stance! -- not go to the ground!).
> 
> The lawyers can sort it out later, regrettably, but then again, I don't go about looking for trouble, so that is in my favour -- I don't have a dangerous job, don't go out at night to dangerous places, and so on. I'm thinking my odds are good that I will never be attacked.


 
Thats exactly the point with what I posted first of all to Kacey.. that was I was glad it worked, but all things considered I felt she was lucky (Not lucky that she made it work, but lucky there wasnt worse that could have happened)!

Many keep saying that they are trained to assess the situation, but thats rubbish when the crap hits the fan. Some are saying assess this and that, but in those first few instances are we are meant to determine weapons held, even those we cant see, attackers friends about, dangers on the floor or around us, the level of power, aggression and intent of the attacker... I dont think so!! And I cant help but believe that those that keep recommending this  are just talking the talk and havnt walked the walk, cos recommending or believing stuff like that is bad for the average joe, even though it may sound reasonable on paper.. in reality its not!

Stuart


----------



## GlassJaw (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> The barking drew nearer, the fox and the cat both got scared.. and suddenly the cat did the only thing it knew and ran up a tree, whilst the fox debated on what course of action to take.. should I do this, should I do that.. he couldnt decide... and in his hesitatation the hounds caught and chewed him to pieces!



Yep, the fox should have practiced more. Response should be as second nature once the situation is identified.  He should have been ready to unleash the appropriate one of his predetermined responses as soon as it was indicated.  It's no time to start assembling a list from scratch.

Having someone's arm around your throat is not the time to try remember some move you were shown a couple times but never really practiced much.  Don't count among your first line of defenses techniques that you can't even pull off. 

The fox had not developed sufficient skill in assessing a situation and acting on it; he should have just taken his chances running.



> Oh I agree.. but thats all before it becomes physical.. when it becomes physical there should be a solid gameplan in place.. not decision making, but action.


And just how _solid_ a gameplan is this when the situation you prepared for is significantly different from the one you're faced with?  The situation _still_ needs to be evaluated before acting.

I do understand what you're saying (or, at least, I think I do).  Many experts feel that warning shots and other displays of force often put you in _more_ danger.  "Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it". . .that sort of thing.  Defenders sometimes get seriously wounded or worse due to reluctance to respond with maximum force.

But, to be honest, I would rather risk losing my own life than to go through the rest of it knowing that I sent a kid to the morgue by using force that I knew was far greater than what I felt the situation actually warranted.  (However, I can't really criticize anyone who would choose to go the other way--the cop who thought the perp had a gun gets the benefit of the doubt in my mind.)



> Physical altercations happen in fractions of a second, most people dont think that fast (kinda like the fox)!


Quite true.  That's why we train in SD...so that we're _not_ like "most people".

Dan


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

GlassJaw said:


> Yep, the fox should have practiced more. Response should be as second nature once the situation is identified. He should have been ready to unleash the appropriate one of his predetermined responses as soon as it was indicated. It's no time to start assembling a list from scratch.


LOL.. perhaps. Though its a bottleneck of thought, rather than inability that got him chewed up!



> Having someone's arm around your throat is not the time to try remember some move you were shown a couple times but never really practiced much. Don't count among your first line of defenses techniques that you can't even pull off.


Nor is it the time for warnin shots or feints!



> The fox had not developed sufficient skill in assessing a situation and acting on it; he should have just taken his chances running.


Neither had the cat.. the cat acted instinctively.



> And just how _solid_ a gameplan is this when the situation you prepared for is significantly different from the one you're faced with? The situation _still_ needs to be evaluated before acting.


The basic gameplan remains the same.. when the opportunity arises.. strike!



> I do understand what you're saying (or, at least, I think I do). Many experts feel that warning shots and other displays of force often put you in _more_ danger. "Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it". . .that sort of thing. Defenders sometimes get seriously wounded or worse due to reluctance to respond with maximum force.


Thats 90% of what Im saying yes. Im also saying too many options (whether by evaluation or not) causes problems you dont need!



> But, to be honest, I would rather risk losing my own life than to go through the rest of it knowing that I sent a kid to the morgue by using force that I knew was far greater than what I felt the situation actually warranted.


Everyone seems to be talking black/white here... there are many shades of grey.. you dont have to punch the guys throat out or break his leg.. just do what is neccesary to safely walk away! This could be as little as a powerslap! Besides, losing your own life may not be a problem for you, but it may be for your wife/girlfriend/mum/dad/kids etc.!



> Quite true. That's why we train in SD...so that we're _not_ like "most people".


Sadly, unless your doing reality based senerio's every class.. you are! Why do you think soldiers drill over and over and over and over ad neaueum!  If you are than fair play, if your not.. then your not training the area you are talking about (summing the situation in the blink of an eye to determine the appropriate response).. though I agee a well trained martial artist can pick and chose his 1st strikes.. though thats not the same as dertiming a situation isnt life threatening, whether the attacker has weapons/friends etc.

Stuart


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Perhaps the US legal system has gone too crazy as you say


Yes, sir, this is the case!  No less than crazy!


----------



## exile (Jun 10, 2008)

StuartA said:


> Perhaps the US legal system has gone too crazy as you say...



Stuart, lemme tell you just how crazy it is. A guy who shot at an LEO&#8212;that's right, shot at him with a handgun he was carrying in the course of committing a felony&#8212;and was hit and injured by return fire, has _sued the officer_ on grounds of excessive use of force. I'm not making this up. We have a thread on this in the LEO section somewhere (can someone help me out and fill in the link?&#8212;I'm at the airport and have to run catch my plane in a few minutes...) _Suing a law enforcement officer who used necessary force to subdue a felon after receiving potentially deadly fire from the latter._ :erg:

Now it probably won't go anywhere in court. But note that _probably_ here is not _certainly_. In the US legal system, it's perliously close to the proverbial situation of the lunatics running the asylum. You can see why so many people are bringing up the kinds of points about legal culpability you're encountering....


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 10, 2008)

Great thread, just wanted to sound off about this part:




exile said:


> (ii) the flip side is, a grappling/controlling art still leaves you with the problem: what do you do with the assailant once he's under your control? If you disengage without damaging him, there's an excellent chance he'll come back at you. Whether it's a control/grapple strategy or a linear striking one, you still reach the critical point when you have to decide how to keep the guy out of the fight long enough to make your getaway. And aikido, jiujitsu or hapkido are just as capable of doing major damage to an attacker as TKD, karate or San Soo. Maybe different types of damage, but damage that could land you in court nonetheless, if you use them to force a 'window of safe withdrawal' after bringing down your assailant. And if you _don't_ do that, you've thrown away your greatest advantage and are back at square one, except now (i) he's even more pissed off at you and (ii) he knows what kind of stuff you might do and will be primed to evade it. So you'll just have to do it again, under more difficult circumstances, always a bad idea.


 

Yet locking is not the only SD tool a grappling art has. Have we forgotten our standing throws?

Splat them one direction and run in the other. You'll still have the force issues same as you would with a strike (you DID strike them--with the parking lot) but you got the effect by doing it *once* ( as opposed to how , say, multiple punches might appear to a jury of non-MAists) and there's no arguing you did only enough to get clear.

Now---If things go sideways, and our imagined miscreant is sufficiently quick in wits or body as to muckle on and take you down with him mid-throw, NOW is where a joint break( "Submission" implies a sporting match) stands a lot better chance of being defensible in court as you tried to get clear but were forced down to a place where 90-plus percent of all unarmed homicides occur and more force was needed to escape.

Also--a thought, and one I think I will act upon--someone has mentioned here and there cases where someone skilled at joint locks subdued an assailant, and then let them go, at which point the assailant retaliated, in some cases fatally so, with weapons.

I would suggest finding those news pieces, printing them out and saving them in the event you need to take them to court with you as precedent for why you did what you did.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 10, 2008)

And here's the thing you've all missed in _my_ post - the guy was drunk and hitting on me - he wasn't a serious attacker although I aware of the possibility that he might be; in addition, I wasn't drunk, in fact, I had been drinking soda, as I was the designated driver.  I was in a public place (parking lot) by a major street, with a friend (who was getting her phone out as this was happening) with other people around.  No one bothered to ask about the situation I was in - you all just assumed that I was a lucky idiot who got away with intimidation through dumb luck rather than someone who might actually know what the hell I was doing.

I'll say it again:  _if you weren't there, then you can't say what I should have done_.  There are too many variables involved that just didn't come up in my original description, and even more than I wouldn't have taken in consciously but that were part of my decision to do what I did.  You want to break somebody's nose for being a drunk who wants a kiss or a lay but can be scared off instead, you go with that.  If this guy had been sober, or armed, or I had been alone, or the area more isolated, or any one of an amazing number of factors, my response would have been different.  Nonetheless, I was there, the decision I made was the right one for me and for the situation - it may have been luck, or guess what guys, it may have been skill; it may even have been the right decision...  But hey, I'm female, I didn't choose to do the "macho" thing and do more damage than was needed, and therefore I must be a lucky, an idiot, or both - 21 years of training and a IV Dan notwithstanding - because I don't espouse doing more damage than needed in that particular situation.  

But you can all go on telling each other that I made the wrong decision - and I hope you never come up on a similar situation and get arrested (or worse yet, sued) because you injured someone who was attacking you out of proportion to the danger of the situation.  That's your choice.  I'll stick with my choice.  But please quit trying to browbeat me into changing my opinion, because that kind of intimidation tactic just doesn't work on the 'net!


----------



## Errant108 (Jun 10, 2008)

Actually, I can think of one very good reason why Kacey's tactic, and anyone else who would employ such a tactic, are making a very strategic mistake.

Kacey swung first.

She attacked the jerkoff in question.  That she didn't hit him is moot.  She gave him the right to defend himself.  A good defense attorney would tear you to shreds for using this tactic, much less a prosecutor.  Add in that you are a black belt and the man now felt threatened...well...you've walked into a lawsuit just as easily as if you'd decked him.  Add in the fact that you initiated the attack, then you just might have justified whatever actions he takes in self-defense.  You escalated the event just as much as you would have had you punched him.  It paid off.  This time.

Now, the problem Kacey, is that you automatically assume that by criticizing this tactic, we are saying you should have used more force, busted his nose, broken his ribs, or what not.  This is not a case of either or.

What you did is the unarmed equivalent of brandishing.  You drew your gun, pointed it at this man, and fired a warning shot.  No, you didn't hit him.  But you opened yourself up to just as much legal hell as if you'd done otherwise.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> And here's the thing you've all missed in _my_ post - the guy was drunk and hitting on me - he wasn't a serious attacker although I aware of the possibility that he might be; in addition, I wasn't drunk, in fact, I had been drinking soda, as I was the designated driver. I was in a public place (parking lot) by a major street, with a friend (who was getting her phone out as this was happening) with other people around. No one bothered to ask about the situation I was in - you all just assumed that I was a lucky idiot who got away with intimidation through dumb luck rather than someone who might actually know what the hell I was doing.
> 
> I'll say it again: _if you weren't there, then you can't say what I should have done_. There are too many variables involved that just didn't come up in my original description, and even more than I wouldn't have taken in consciously but that were part of my decision to do what I did. You want to break somebody's nose for being a drunk who wants a kiss or a lay but can be scared off instead, you go with that. If this guy had been sober, or armed, or I had been alone, or the area more isolated, or any one of an amazing number of factors, my response would have been different. Nonetheless, I was there, the decision I made was the right one for me and for the situation - it may have been luck, or guess what guys, it may have been skill; it may even have been the right decision... But hey, I'm female, I didn't choose to do the "macho" thing and do more damage than was needed, and therefore I must be a lucky, an idiot, or both - 21 years of training and a IV Dan notwithstanding - because I don't espouse doing more damage than needed in that particular situation.
> 
> But you can all go on telling each other that I made the wrong decision - and I hope you never come up on a similar situation and get arrested (or worse yet, sued) because you injured someone who was attacking you out of proportion to the danger of the situation. That's your choice. I'll stick with my choice. But please quit trying to browbeat me into changing my opinion, because that kind of intimidation tactic just doesn't work on the 'net!


 
Sorry if I came off that way, I was responding to a single part of exile's observations with one of mine, which was in no way attempting to judge or "Monday-Morning-Quarterback" your situation.

Whether I might have chosen a similar or different approach is neither here nor there; the point is it worked and you're here to participate in these threads with us, for which we are happy, for you are cool.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 10, 2008)

> I'll say it again: if you weren't there, then you can't say what I should have done.



I tend to look at that there are percentages and averages, and then circumstances.

It's easy to say "under a given situation, this is what one should or should not do".  As an abstraction you can play the odds.

But under the direct circumstances, there are some many particulars that are going to change the odds of the scenario that all you can rely on is best observation, best judgement and best reaction

As such, I try not to second guess people who live to fight another day, however they got there


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 10, 2008)

> She swung first





> I said no; *he wouldn't quit, and followed us out when we left. He grabbed my wrist and wouldn't let go, so I got loose myself (releases can be so effective!) - so he grabbed me again. With my other hand, I punched once*


*

I would say *especially* that since he was a he and she was a she, that he was grabbing and holding her puts her in the self-defense posture.  She may (everyone may always) face civil suit from the other party, but I would (not being a lawyer) find it hard to believe she would face criminal action*


----------



## StuartA (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> And here's the thing you've all missed in _my_ post - the guy was drunk and hitting on me - he wasn't a serious attacker although I aware of the possibility that he might be


You stated the guy was hitting on you, wouldnt quit, followed you as you left and grabbed you (more than once).. in my mind that sounds pretty serious!



> I was in a public place (parking lot) by a major street, with a friend (who was getting her phone out as this was happening) with other people around.


Then its more likely, with the correct steps, that the law would have been favourably on your side and not the other way round as you keep putting!



> No one bothered to ask about the situation I was in


Thats because the general public in the main, dont like getting involved in anything that may get them injured!! Sad fact of todays society! Remember folks.. its better to scream _help fire_, than _help Im being attacked _if you actually want people to come!



> you all just assumed that I was a lucky idiot who got away with intimidation through dumb luck rather than someone who might actually know what the hell I was doing.


Not at all.. the _'luck'_ part was that the guy was exactly how you described, because unless you can read minds you couldnt have known his intentions 100% or that he didnt have a weapon etc. And no-one called you an idiot!!! In fact, a warrior has a choice where as others do not... and you exercised that choice. It doesnt change the fact that to me, as a general rule it was a bad move.. but thats not a shot at you, as when I talk SD I talk in general and I would never advise someone to do that.. sorry if you dont like that, but thats how I see it. I'd say taking a mugger to the floor to tackle him was a bad move to Hickson Gracie, even though it would work for him no doubt, its still a bad move in the general scheme of things!



> You want to break somebody's nose for being a drunk who wants a kiss or a lay but can be scared off instead, you go with that.


Who said break his nose? There plenty of options available! And rapists want the same things you mention and go to more lengths to get them!!! You said he followed you and grabbed you.. hence the situation maybe read more serious on paper (ie. here) than it was when it happened! We can only go off what we read and discuss that.. after all, isnt that the point of a forum!



> But hey, I'm female, I didn't choose to do the "macho" thing and do more damage than was needed, and therefore I must be a lucky, an idiot, or both - 21 years of training and a IV Dan notwithstanding -


It has nothing to do with being female.. Id say exactly the same thing to a man, how many years of training you have or what Dan you are  are nothing to do with it either, plenty of dan grade know next to nothing about self protection, where as many self protection sumpremo's have never held dan grades.. the two are unrelated! And I find that an odd sentence to read personally.. almost like a chip! Oh, and my opinion (if that refers to me) isnt the _"macho_" thing, its basic principles involved in correct self-protection.. sure there may be the odd circumstances (had them myself) where its not required, but as general advice and reasoning (as this is a public forum) its the safest and most correct advice to give! And like you say, I wasnt there, so based on what I read here.. the reasoning stays the same!




> But you can all go on telling each other that I made the wrong decision


Actually, I feel your taking it a bit too personally as the discussions based on your account centred around the situation really, plus theres plenty of others that feel your decision was okay.. its just a discussion!



> and I hope you never come up on a similar situation and get arrested (or worse yet, sued) because you injured someone who was attacking you out of proportion to the danger of the situation.


I have been (though my defence wasnt out of proportion IMO), handcuffed and put in a police car after I defended someone else .. with the attacker screaming blue murder that I attacked him (and it probibly looked that way as the police rolled up as I was on top of him and technically I did as he was strangling someone else, not me).. funnily enough Joe Public (ie. witnesses) were interviewed who comfirmed my story and that was that!



> But please quit trying to browbeat me into changing my opinion, because that kind of intimidation tactic just doesn't work on the 'net!


Browbeating!!! Intimidation!! jeez... get over it will ya! Are people not allowed to disagree with your opinion and have their own without saying that they are trying to be intimidating!!! Hell, your intimidating me :whip: 


Stuart


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Got your attention? : )
> 
> One thing that occasionally goes through my mind is that Tae Kwon Do is a very hard striking, brutal art when it comes to application of the techniques. When we talk about 'traditional' Tae Kwon Do here, we talk about the Korean military being feared for their deadly skills. Tae Kwon Do is not about control and submission, it's about damage and destruction. It's about disabling or killing an enemy combatant before they kill you
> 
> ...


You bring up a good point. Going on the offensive is not always a good idea and that is where TKD shines the brightest.
Sean


----------



## zDom (Jun 10, 2008)

Who "threw the first punch" isn't always the deciding factor.

If someone touched me, I warned them, and they touched me again they might have just ended up with a lot more than "brandishing" from ME.

Depends on the situation, though, and I wasn't there: Kacey was.

She walked away unhurt so her decision was correct enough.


----------



## Windsinger (Jun 10, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Actually, I can think of one very good reason why Kacey's tactic, and anyone else who would employ such a tactic, are making a very strategic mistake.
> 
> Kacey swung first.



Kacey swung first, but the drunk grabbed her - technically that qualifies as assault. If he had just been following her, harassing her but never actually touching her, and she swung, yes, she would have been at fault. As it is, the fact that he grabbed her, twice, makes a big difference.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> And here's the thing you've *all *missed in _my_ post -


Not all, Kacey, not all....


----------



## Errant108 (Jun 10, 2008)

A grab of the wrist can be "explained" in various different ways by a shrewd attorney as being a non-violent action.  Now, you, me, & everyone else may know that this guy was being a complete and utter nutbar and probably deserved well more than what Kacey gave him.   But he didn't swing at her.

Remember, in a trial, it's not what actually happened that matters.

It's what a jury can be convinced to believe.

He grabbed her wrist.

She swung at him.

That was an escalation and could easily be used against her.

Note, I'm not saying she wasn't justified in do what she did, however, saying that pulling some sort of Van Damme-esque "Read between the lines" tactic could backfire on you in more ways than one.  Saying that this, actually physically swinging on someone, is safer legally than hitting someone, is not logical.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 10, 2008)

I'm just tickled that after three years on this board I finally started a thread that's gone five pages...


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 10, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> I'm just tickled that after three years on this board I finally started a thread that's gone five pages...


Braggart! :lol: J/K, you know I have that quirky sense of humor.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I'll say it again:  _if you weren't there, then you can't say what I should have done_.  There are too many variables involved that just didn't come up in my original description, and even more than I wouldn't have taken in consciously but that were part of my decision to do what I did.



I, for one, hope that I do not seem like I am second guessing you, or anyone else.  I completely understand that there's NO WAY that anyone can rightfully assess this type of thing unless they were there.  

Its just that I am still susceptible to the "adrenaline drop", and I have the tendency to suspect things can go from bad to WORSE.  That is why I am not a trouble maker -- in the US, as everyone is saying -- trouble begets more trouble, its not good.

Also, I can say this -- in the late 70's and 80's people did not think the same way as this -- the general rule of thumb was -- they give it to you, then you give it back, plain and simple.  Perhaps the courts were not so screwed up then.   They give you trouble?  Okay, then, here we go...

But this thread is very nice.  It is a good topic!  Just everyone be advised that I am not trying to critique the way that this particular scenario went down.  All is well that ends well, is what I say!


----------



## newGuy12 (Jun 10, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> I'm just tickled that after three years on this board I finally started a thread that's gone five pages...



Haha, FearlessFreep starts the thread out with some kind of big talk that will produce all this output!  You have instigated this, now, I am up at night reading this, loosing sleep!!!

Haha!


----------



## Shadow tkd (Jun 11, 2008)

Very good topic taekwondo is a very efective self defense martial art and I dont belive it is in any way obsolete if someone is attacking you and you are an experianced practitioner of taekwondo you can very easily knock them out.A lot of people believe that if you try to use strikes in a street fight you will lose because the attacker will block and take you down but from personle experiance if an experiance taekwondo practitioner kicks you and you block all that will happen is your arm will be in a cast.


----------



## exile (Jun 12, 2008)

Shadow tkd said:


> Very good topic taekwondo is a very efective self defense martial art and I dont belive it is in any way obsolete if someone is attacking you and you are an experianced practitioner of taekwondo you can very easily knock them out.A lot of people believe that if you try to use strikes in a street fight you will lose because the attacker will block and take you down but from personle experiance if an experiance taekwondo practitioner kicks you and you block all that will happen is your arm will be in a cast.



But the issue isn's whether TKD is _effective_, in a purely combat-based sense. The issue, as FF makes pretty clear, is whether a dedicated scorched-earth striking art&#8212;such as TKD&#8212;is what legal realists are going to be looking at most favorably, given the nature of current legal culture and the frequently litigious response of damaged attackers to the defenders who have inflicted that damage, no matter how justified we might think their response was. And a further point raised by some of the posters involves the question of just how scaled-down you can make your response in a striking art, to handle cases where a 10-megaton response might be hard to justify ethically (look back at some of the preceding posts for various scenarios along these lines).

My own approach to TKD involve a good deal of locking and controlling moves, which normally would be used to fix and control the target preparatory to a finishing strike, but which should be useful in and of themselves to bring the assault to a standstill. For me, the really dicey part of the discussion is, just what happens at _that_ point? Opening a genuinely _secure_ getaway window for yourself, once you've halted the attack, seems to me to be the really tricky bit... but in any case, no one is arguing that a competent TKDist can't badly hurt an attacker. The OP issue is a bit different from that.


----------



## Shadow tkd (Jun 12, 2008)

exile said:


> But the issue isn's whether TKD is _effective_, in a purely combat-based sense. The issue, as FF makes pretty clear, is whether a dedicated scorched-earth striking artsuch as TKDis what legal realists are going to be looking at most favorably, given the nature of current legal culture and the frequently litigious response of damaged attackers to the defenders who have inflicted that damage, no matter how justified we might think their response was. And a further point raised by some of the posters involves the question of just how scaled-down you can make your response in a striking art, to handle cases where a 10-megaton response might be hard to justify ethically (look back at some of the preceding posts for various scenarios along these lines).
> 
> My own approach to TKD involve a good deal of locking and controlling moves, which normally would be used to fix and control the target preparatory to a finishing strike, but which should be useful in and of themselves to bring the assault to a standstill. For me, the really dicey part of the discussion is, just what happens at _that_ point? Opening a genuinely _secure_ getaway window for yourself, once you've halted the attack, seems to me to be the really tricky bit... but in any case, no one is arguing that a competent TKDist can't badly hurt an attacker. The OP issue is a bit different from that.


Very good point if you dont want to seriously hurt your attacker then I think tkd is one of the hardest martial arts to tone down simply because it's so brutal when used by someone who knows what they are doing


----------



## exile (Jun 12, 2008)

Shadow tkd said:


> Very good point if you dont want to seriously hurt your attacker then I think tkd is one of the hardest martial arts to tone down simply because it's so brutal when used by someone who knows what they are doing



This point is what a lot of the previous posts are kind of revolving around... how to use the art in a non-lethal but defensively effective fashion. And it's a hard one, all right. 

It might be useful to reframe the OP point as a kind of challenge:

(i) let's agree, TKD emphasizes hard, damaging strikes, with both kicks and hand/arm techs. The moves are of the no-quarter-given-or-asked-for variety.

(ii) Let's also start from the premise that TKD is _not_ obsolete, i.e., still represents a useful set of strategic premises and techniques, even in an era of lawsuit-happy felons and a somewhat topsy-turvy legal view of self-defense (defend yourself _too_ effectively and you could be perceived as the main offender, that sort of thing). 

(iii) So the challenge is to solve the problem: _how should TKD best be trained/applied so that (i) and (ii) are compatible?_


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 12, 2008)

_
(iii) So the challenge is to solve the problem: how should TKD best be trained/applied so that (i) and (ii) are compatible?_

Excellent question.

I believe some have answered it by borrowing 'softer' techniques such as from Hapkido.  I use the term 'softer' not because they are not painfully effective but just because they are designed more for negation of the attack then         destruction of the attacker.

What other approaches are appropriate?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 12, 2008)

Not strictly TKD or a Korean art, but Judo goes with anything.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 12, 2008)

exile said:


> This point is what a lot of the previous posts are kind of revolving around... how to use the art in a non-lethal but defensively effective fashion. And it's a hard one, all right.
> 
> It might be useful to reframe the OP point as a kind of challenge:
> 
> ...


 
Then, too, the answer I gave you happens to work in *my case* it may not for someone of different ability.


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Nov 25, 2008)

exile said:


> Good post, FF. Two things occur to me off the bat:
> 
> (ii) the flip side is, a grappling/controlling art still leaves you with the problem: what do you do with the assailant once he's under your control? If you disengage without damaging him, there's an excellent chance he'll come back at you. Whether it's a control/grapple strategy or a linear striking one, you still reach the critical point when you have to decide how to keep the guy out of the fight long enough to make your getaway. And aikido, jiujitsu or hapkido are just as capable of doing major damage to an attacker as TKD, karate or San Soo. Maybe different types of damage, but damage that could land you in court nonetheless, if you use them to force a 'window of safe withdrawal' after bringing down your assailant. And if you _don't_ do that, you've thrown away your greatest advantage and are back at square one, except now (i) he's even more pissed off at you and (ii) he knows what kind of stuff you might do and will be primed to evade it. So you'll just have to do it again, under more difficult circumstances, always a bad idea.



Then again, a grappling art gives you the option to control the attacker. I'm not sure I can kick someone just enough to disable them without actually doing serious damage. Clearly there are situations that lend themselves to controlling someone before a 3rd party, ex. -the police arrive. Maybe other members here have more control of their ability to strike just enough to stop the opponent without serious injury, but when situations heat up, i'm just not sure how much control strikes would have. Proper restraint is generally a deterrent in itself due to the attacker causing pain on himself. A proper kick, especially if we are being rushed, may do more damage than is needed....just my two cents


----------



## bigfootsquatch (Nov 25, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> _
> (iii) So the challenge is to solve the problem: how should TKD best be trained/applied so that (i) and (ii) are compatible?_
> 
> Excellent question.
> ...



I think that every system needs some method of ground survival for those OOPS moments. I've some TKD artists use kicks on the ground, but once again I don't think everyone deserves to be limping or nurse broken ribs for 6 months over a silly altercation.


----------



## exile (Nov 25, 2008)

bigfootsquatch said:


> Then again, a grappling art gives you the option to control the attacker. I'm not sure I can kick someone just enough to disable them without actually doing serious damage. Clearly there are situations that lend themselves to controlling someone before a 3rd party, ex. -the police arrive.



No question&#8212;but bear in mind, this requires favorable circumstances. A drunken jerk in a bar where you're a regular and management is happy to call in law while you keep the attacker controlled is one thing. But what if it's just you and him on a subway somewhere, with a bunch of scared bystanders who want no part of either of you? I've been in situations which could easily have gone that way. Sure, you have a cell phone.... _but you can't use it to call 911_, because both hands are engaged in maintaining the control. 



bigfootsquatch said:


> Maybe other members here have more control of their ability to strike just enough to stop the opponent without serious injury, but when situations heat up, i'm just not sure how much control strikes would have.



Anyone who can use a damaging impact strike technique for control (as vs. termination) purposes is a way, way more skilled craftsperson in the art than I am (or anyone else I know personally is). Very low probability, I'd say.



bigfootsquatch said:


> Proper restraint is generally a deterrent in itself due to the attacker causing pain on himself. A proper kick, especially if we are being rushed, may do more damage than is needed....just my two cents



Yes, no question. But if all you do is establish control, you're taking a big, big chance that you'll be in the clear when you release control.

It's a nasty dilemma, no question.  The easy cases are the ones like my original friendly-bar scenario. But when trouble finds you, it's almost certainly going to be in a much more isolated, trouble-filled context.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 26, 2008)

exile said:


> No questionbut bear in mind, this requires favorable circumstances. A drunken jerk in a bar where you're a regular and management is happy to call in law while you keep the attacker controlled is one thing. But what if it's just you and him on a subway somewhere, with a bunch of scared bystanders who want no part of either of you? I've been in situations which could easily have gone that way. Sure, you have a cell phone.... _but you can't use it to call 911_, because both hands are engaged in maintaining the control.


 
Not to mention scum ALWAYS travel in pairs and packs. If you plan to control you better bring friends.


----------



## exile (Nov 26, 2008)

Cirdan said:


> Not to mention scum ALWAYS travel in pairs and packs. If you plan to control you better bring friends.



That is very true also. The danger of stopping at pure control goes through the roof if there's more than one involved in attacking you. In that situation, I'd say, you'd be better to do the most damaging move available in the shortest time, and then use the effect as an exit. You're probably only going to get one chance there...


----------



## BrandonLucas (Nov 26, 2008)

First off, this is an excellent, excellent thread.  There are several things that I want to cover, so I'm probably going to get long-winded, which I have a tendany to do, so anyone reading this is now warned!

So...first, dealing with the self-defense aspect of the art...

I think it's all about how you're taught.  I think of it like the difference between Miyagi-do and Kobra-Kai.  One instructor may teach you to be defensive in your physicallity, and another instructor may teach you to be more aggressive in your physicallity.  I also think that it comes down to each of us as individuals as to how we react to a situation.

I, personally, act defensively.  I fight defensively.  I prefer to try to talk my way out of an escalating incident rather than get it over with.  How I react is not wrong for who I am...I'm comfortable with how I handle situations, and I'm very confident that I can handle myself however I need to.  

On the other side of the coin, I know of 2 people off the top of my head that act offensively to escalating situations.  How they react is not wrong for them...they are confident enough and well-versed enough in their MA's to know how to properly handle a situation using the aggressive approach.

If I were to try to act aggressively, I don't think I would be successful in stopping the situation, and the same goes for the guys who react aggressively naturally...if they try to react defensively, it's probably not going to work for them, either...

What I'm getting at is this:

I'm a big guy.  I'm 6'1", around 285 lbs (give or take a few).  I'm not in the best shape, but I'm no slouch, either, and I know how to use my weight and size to my advantage in a physical situation.  I prefer not to have to use any of my physical skill to get out of an escalating situation.  Instead, I prefer to talk my way out of it and walk away...that way, no one gets hurt...

What I tend to look at in situations is this:  Exactly *why *are things fixing to get physical?  Is it because I accidentally bumped into this guy in the bar, and his drink spilled?  Is it because I feel like this person is coming at me with mallicious intent and I feel my life is in danger?

I like to weigh my options here.  If I feel like something's fixing to get ugly because someone's pride (myself or someone else's) was hurt, I'm going to leave it alone and walk away, talking my way out of the situation.  If talking and walking away do not work, and the person attacks me anyway, then I'll do what is necessary to make them *stop attacking*.  That doesn't mean I'm going to break the guy's neck Segal-style.  If it means that I can move out of the way of the attack and he falls on his face, then that's what I'll do.  Nothing more.  It's just not necessary...and I can deem what is necessary as I'm a blackbelt...I'll get into that in a moment.

If I feel like something's fixing to get ugly because my life or someone else's life is in imminent danger, then I'll use whatever force I deem necessary to make them *stop attacking*.  In this case, if that means that they won't stop attacking me unless they're dead, then so be it.  That would be the last option, after I've exhausted everything else at my disposal.

Now, I mentioned a moment ago that I can deem necessary what force to use.  As a blackbelt in TKD, I should be an expert as to judging how much or how little force should be administered to defend an attack properly to render the attacker *unable to continue attacking.*

I've bolded those words for this reason:  If you use force that is beyond what is needed to defend yourself to the point that you are no longer under attack, then you are, yourself, going on the offensive.  

Think of it this way:  You can view volence levels as you would a scale...with no violence being the neutral point.  You have yourself on one side and your attacker on the other.  When your attacker begins the attack, the scales are lower on their side, since the scales are weighed down by violence.  Your goal *should *be to even the scales to the point where no violence takes place, and to keep it that way.

Now, it's up to you, as the defender, to decide exactly how much force is going to be necessary to return your scale back to its neutral position...if you have to simply pop the guy in the nose, and he stops, then great...but if you have to subdue your opponent until help arrives to stop the violence, then this should be done with the correct amount of force.

Let's take a look at 2 situations here to demonstrate what I'm talking about.  We're going to assume that I'm unarmed, but I don't know if the other person is unarmed or not.

I've just bumped into that guy in the bar and spilled his drink...I've said excuse me, and offered to replace his drink, but he will have none of it.  He's dunk, so he's not listening to normal reason. Instead, he contiues to push me physically on the shoulders until my back is against a wall, and I can see him drawing back to puch me.

We'll say that the guy isn't as big as I am for the sake of argument, and that I am 2 inches taller and outweigh him by 50 lbs or so.  

As he's drawing back to punch me, I deliver the hardest punch that I can to his nose, shattering it.  He flies back into a table and lies still, unconcious.  It is later discovered that I have broken his nose beyond the point that it can heal properly, and he will have to have reconstructive surgery done.  Not only that, he lost a great deal of blood as he had a lot of alcohol in his system.

That's scenerio 1.

Scenerio 2:

As the guy is drawing back to punch me, I deliver a strong, shoving punch to the guy's solarplexus, knocking the wind out of him.  He doubles over, unable to breathe well.

I walk away quickly, not giving the guy enough time to chase after me to continue the fight.  I pay my tab and leave the bar.

Now, both of those scenerios have happened before, in real life, but not to me, thankfully.  I was present when both happened, and saw what could have and should have happened in both situations.

As far as the legal standpoint goes, I agree that if you're in a physical altercation, you're sunk.  Period.  Even if you are simply defending yourself.  IMO, though, why give the legal system extra ammo to use against you?  If you can stop the fight with a small amount of force, then that's what you do.  If you know that a small amount of force won't work, then you do what is necessary and worry about the legal consequences later.


----------



## BanannaSmoothie (Nov 26, 2008)

if someone gives a legitimate threat of physical harm to me, i go back to my old standard.

STRIKE FIRST/STRIKE HARD/NO MERCY SIR!

but really, if someone comes looking for trouble from me, then i can dish it out however they want.  if it's a drunk kid, they can expect some BJJ treatment for a softer knockout via blood choke.  if it's someone that actually makes me worry that i will incur serious damage, then they get the TKD stand up until they fall over, where the BJJ will come into effect.  they will be lucky to only have one broken bone when i'm done.


----------



## zeeberex (Nov 26, 2008)

FearlessFreep said:


> Got your attention? : )
> 
> One thing that occasionally goes through my mind is that Tae Kwon Do is a very hard striking, brutal art when it comes to application of the techniques.  When we talk about 'traditional' Tae Kwon Do here, we talk about the Korean military being feared for their deadly skills. Tae Kwon Do is not about control and submission, it's about damage and destruction.  It's about disabling or killing an enemy combatant before they kill you
> 
> ...



Sorry if I dont read the whole thread, just throw my two cents into it. Obselete? No. Too sport oriented imho, hell yes. The techniques are fine, the way they are taught could use some fine tuning is all.


----------



## level7 (Nov 27, 2008)

Celtic Tiger said:


> Deescalation only works _before_ they attack.  Once they attack, I am a firm believer in disabling my opponent, _not_ deescalation.  I have no interest in trying to figure out what to do with the guy I've just grappled into a pretzel and hope that he doesn't get a hand free to pull a knife.  Nor do I have any interest in maintaining such close proximity to an assailant.  No, I want him down and unable to continue, preferably unconscious.  TKD works quite well for this.
> 
> Daniel




This is my train of thought as well. Once its ON, its ON. 

Disarm, disable get out of harms way as fast as you can. I think by its implied definition and implementation in the U.S., Martial Arts are used for self defense, which means you have done all you can to avoid the confrontation are are left with nothing more then to fight. 

As stated, the trick is knowing how much force to apply since every situation is different. A person with a gun sneaking into your house should be dealt with differently than a drunk college kid at a bar.


----------

