# How Do You Define "Self Defense?"



## MJS (Jun 6, 2011)

As a spin off to my "How do you define martial arts?" thread in the GMA section, the mention of SD came up in that thread, so rather than side track it, I thought I'd start a new thread.  

So, how do you define self defense?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 6, 2011)

I define it rather strictly as 'defense of the physical self.'  My life, my physical well-being.

Not for my family or loved ones.  Yes, I'd fight to defend them, but that's not self-defense.  Not for my community or county.  Not for my morals or values.  Not for my pride.  Not because _"I should not have to put up with"_ whatever it is I am being asked to do.  I might fight for any of those reasons, but I do not define them as self-defense.

I think people get wrapped around the axle when discussing those topics.  Mention that you'd give up your wallet if you thought it was the best way to avoid being killed in a confrontation, and you're a coward who wants to see society go to the dogs and thinks it would be nifty keen if your children were murdered before your eyes.  You love murderers and probably want to die a victim.  It's nothing of the kind.

To me, self-defense means every component that goes into keeping myself safe, alive, and reasonably intact.  It means staying out of places I know to be risky unless I have some overwhelming reason to be there.  And _"I should be able to walk down any street I want in America"_ is not a good enough reason.

It means martial arts training.  It means thinking strategically.  It means planning.  It means evaluating options quickly and executing quickly without regard to my ego.  Yes, I'm a big old yellow-bellied coward commie no good rotten punk if I hand over my wallet to a guy with a knife instead of executing my ninja stealthy upside-down spinning backwards double eye-gouge on him.  Yes, I realize it means I really want the world to come to an end as the criminals take over.  Yes, I realize he'll probably kill me anyway.  And blah, blah, blah, blah (for those about to recite the usual litany of anger-management issues, not you MJS).

But in fact, most who rob do not kill; they rob and go.  Statistics are on my side, and yeah, I've done my homework.  Despite what the 'common wisdom' says about armed robbers, the facts are that they mostly do not kill their victims.  Of course I am not going to blindly put my faith in what statistics say; I will engage my eyes, ears, and brain; if I *do* think I'm going to be killed anyway after turning over my wallet, then I'm going to choose some other response.

Run away, Avoid bad areas, keep my wits about me, don't go into bars, don't get intoxicated in public, avoid ostentatious displays of wealth (like I had any), comply with demands, make noise, carry a firearm, use physical force, these are all options and methods of self-defense.  Don't chase down criminals, don't try to be a hero, be a good witness, have a cell phone.  Have a plan.

It means I like staying on the topside of the grass, and I like my blood where it is.  Whatever I have to do to keep that happening, I'll do.  If the circumstances favor fleeing, I'll do that.  If the circumstances favor complying with demands, then bye-bye to my wallet.  If the circumstances favor physical violence, then I'm going to give it all I've got.

I am reminded of a coworker a couple years ago who got into a fight in a bar parking lot. He and the guy exchanged words, and punches were thrown.  He fell down and hit his head on a parking divider.  That's it, he died.

I will not die like that if I can help it.  Not for my money, not for my honor, not because someone looked at me funny, not because someone said something nasty about my family tree or my wife, not even because someone demanded my wallet.  Screw that noise, I want to live. My family depends on me, I have responsibilities that are way more important than my buddies telling my widow at my funeral that _"at least he went down fighting,_" while she can't pay the rent or buy food.  Coward?  Yellow?  You bet.  Alive, that's what matters.  That is self-defense.


----------



## Never_A_Reflection (Jun 6, 2011)

My best definition of "self defense" is this:

Prevention/mitigation/cessation of immediate harm (physical, psychological or emotional) being inflicted upon you.

I feel that this is generally a sufficient definition and covers all aspects of self defense through its vagueness.  I think Bill summed up what it can consist of fairly well:



Bill Mattocks said:


> _...snip_
> 
> It means martial arts training.  It means thinking strategically.  It means planning.  It means evaluating options quickly and executing quickly without regard to my ego.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jun 6, 2011)

Self-defense is the strategies, principles, tactics and techniques to defend oneself and/or loved ones (or another person) from an attack which can cause bodily harm, great bodily harm and/or death.


----------



## Steve (Jun 6, 2011)

Self defense is everything you do to avoid physical altercation.  If you're fighting with someone, you have fundamentally failed at self defense.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2011)

The use of force to defend myself, my property, or another person.


----------



## puunui (Jun 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I define it rather strictly as 'defense of the physical self.'  My life, my physical well-being. Not for my family or loved ones.  Yes, I'd fight to defend them, but that's not self-defense.



What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?



First, the term is _'self' _defense.  Self means self.  My wife is not my 'self', and neither is my house or my wallet.

This is not just a term or art.  Consider that self-defense laws are constructed with the person's defense of self in mind.

Second, I believe that defending others - whether it is one's family, one's property, or other people - is a different proposition, requiring different responses.  As a simple example, if I am defending my own life, I do not have to consider what happens if I respond with violence and I am killed.  My life does not exist beyond that point.  However, if I am defending my wife, and I am killed, she is (presumably) still in danger, and now I can do nothing to protect her because I am dead.  Likewise, I may choose to run away away from an attacker if alone, but if I am with someone who cannot run, then my response will be necessarily different.

The term, _'self-defense'_ is explicit.  Defense of the self.  There is nothing else it describes.  What would I call defense of others?  Defense of others, I guess.  Not trying to be cute; I don't think there is a specific term for it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 7, 2011)

puunui said:


> What would defense of your family or loved ones be considered then and how does that differentiation change what you would do if they were being physically attacked? Is there a separate standard for self defense and the defense of others from your point of view?



Addendum: I would also like to point out that by conflating _'self' _defense with defense of one's property or defense of other people, it often causes disagreement between people discussing appropriate responses to threats or danger, because they are operating with different modalities.  If my concept of _'self-defense'_ is different than yours, my thoughts about appropriate responses are going to be very different as well.  In order to have the discussion, one must first agree on what is meant by the terms themselves, in my opinion.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 7, 2011)

My definition of self-defense is flexible, it is dictated by the laws of state that am in.   That is my personal definition.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 7, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> My definition of self-defense is flexible, it is dictated by the laws of state that am in.   That is my personal definition.



Technically, that's metadata.  You are describing information about your definition, but not the definition itself.  You're telling us that you have different definitions of self-defense but not what they are.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 7, 2011)

Oh, am sorry, thank you Bill for letting me know. I appreciate that.   Personally, then maybe I don't have a personal definition. I am subjected to the law of the land in which I am present. In most places there is a core definition of self defense that is basic and universal. But the law dictates to what extent that will be, what you and can't do, in terms of what is justifiable self defense. My personal definition must fit in with the law. If some one slaps me, am *not* going to shoot them. I am going to act in kind or less in return. Not every where you go has the same law for defending yourself, but the core definition is pretty much universally the same, to protect  one's self against a threat or attack.


----------



## puunui (Jun 7, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The term, _'self-defense'_ is explicit.  Defense of the self.  There is nothing else it describes.  What would I call defense of others?  Defense of others, I guess.  Not trying to be cute; I don't think there is a specific term for it.




I used the term "defense of others" because it is a specific term. For one thing, you have no duty to act is someone else is in danger or peril. You are on the beach and see someone drowning in the water. Unless you are the lifeguard, you have no duty to try and save him/her, and you cannot get sued or arrested for failing to save him/her if you did nothing. So the standard is different for self defense and defense of others.


----------



## MJS (Jun 12, 2011)

I view SD as not only the physical techniques but also the common sense things, such as how to verbally defuse something, as well as awareness.  If you can see potential trouble, and allow yourself to not be there, you've won without having to fight.


----------



## UKS (Jun 13, 2011)

For me SD is protecting myself, my property and my family.


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2011)

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/06/man_shot_after_telling_robber.html

Rich Parsons posted this on his FB.

*



			FLINT, Michigan 
		
Click to expand...

*


> A man was shot Sunday night after having only change to offer a robber, according to a police report.
> 
> The man told police he was leaving a store at East Flint Park Boulevard near King Avenue about 11 p.m. when he was approached by a man demanding money.
> 
> ...


 
Could this guy have been shot somewhere else?  Sure.  Could this guy, if nobody was around to help him or if he wasn't able to drive himself, die from his shot to the leg, if he started losing alot of blood?  Sure.  That being said, my view will continue to remain the same....for myself, I'd rather not wait to see whether or not the guy is going to simply intimidate me with the weapon, actually follow thru and shoot/stab, shoot me in the leg or the chest...if I have the potential to get really hurt or worse, I may as well go out with a fight.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 15, 2011)

MJS said:


> http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/06/man_shot_after_telling_robber.html
> 
> Rich Parsons posted this on his FB.
> 
> ...


*

That's a personal choice.  I can't say you'd be right or wrong to make that decision.  What I do say is that every situation is different, and for me, the definition of self-defense is to defend my own life.  If I were confronted in the same manner as the story above, I cannot say I would definitely do this or definitely do that.  I can say I would act in the interest of preserving my own life, *not* in making unwarranted assumptions about what was about to happen next.

Choices are not guarantees.  People make their choices and don't know what the consequences will be until they happen.  I could decide to run, and the guy runs faster than me.  I could decide to give up my property and the guy stabs me anyway (as he did in the story).  I could decide to fight and perhaps win or run off the bad guy.  No one knows what will happen until it happens.

I do know this - the moment I engage in violence, the chances that I will be injured or killed go up.  Period.  That's not a personal belief, that's simple fact.

It is also a fact that once I begin to engage in violence as a response, the chances that I will be able to disengage and simply give up my property or run away are pretty much eliminated.  I am committed to a course of action with little chance of changing my mind.

However, if I run, or if I turn over my property, I am not eliminating the possibility of fighting.  I could hand over my property, become convinced that I was going to be assaulted anyway, and fight based on that new belief.

So given that fact, I have to decide if I have a better chance to survive by fighting or by complying or by choosing some other response. 

No confrontation is a set-piece battle.  No one is locked into their choices, but once a violent response is engaged, it is very hard to de-escalate and choose another option.  Having chosen a non-violent response, one is not locked out of choosing violence as another response if conditions change.

I don't like making statements like "I would always attack if confronted."  It eliminates other options that might better serve the concept of 'self-defense'.  Every situation is different.

If you want to point at news articles about other situations to try to use as a catch-all, I have a number of links to recent news stories of victims who fought back and were killed or seriously injured.  Would they have been killed or injured anyway if they had not fought back?  We don't know.  No one knows.  I therefore don't bet my life on what happens to other people.  If I wanted to play statistics, the statistics are that most muggers do NOT stab or kill anyone.  Those are actually the odds if you want to play odds instead of keeping your options open.*


----------



## MJS (Jun 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's a personal choice. I can't say you'd be right or wrong to make that decision. What I do say is that every situation is different, and for me, the definition of self-defense is to defend my own life. If I were confronted in the same manner as the story above, I cannot say I would definitely do this or definitely do that. I can say I would act in the interest of preserving my own life, *not* in making unwarranted assumptions about what was about to happen next.
> 
> Choices are not guarantees. People make their choices and don't know what the consequences will be until they happen. I could decide to run, and the guy runs faster than me. I could decide to give up my property and the guy stabs me anyway (as he did in the story). I could decide to fight and perhaps win or run off the bad guy. No one knows what will happen until it happens.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not from MI, so I have no idea whether or not that area is good, bad or anything else.  I can say that upon initial read, I'd say its not a great area...again, I dont know.  Unless a dire emergency, I try not to make a 'pitstop' anywhere, at that hour.  Paranoid? Not at all.  In fact, I have stopped for gas after I've gotten out of work, at midnight.  But yeah, at that hour, I'm always looking over my shoulder.  

One of the reasons I'm not fond of stats, is because personally, I dont find them reliable.  To use martial arts as an example:  We always hear people talk about 'high percentage' moves.  Ok, high percentage to who?  Me?  You?  10 other people, of various shapes, sizes, althletic ability?  So whats HP to Rocye Gracie, may not be HP to me.  A Kenpo tech. that my teacher can pull off in his sleep, he will probably consider HP, whereas I may opt for something else.  

You are right...I could hand over my cash, and this could be nothing more than a bad memory.  I could hand it over and as he's walking away, he could turn around and shoot me.  We could what if this all day.  

An instructor that I used to train with, used to have a saying: "If you wait too long, you wait wrong."  He'd say this most often, during sparring.  If you see an opening, take it because that opening may not present itself again.  IMO, the best time to act, is when the badguys attention is on something else.  He's expecting to see movement, while I'm reaching to give him my cash, keys, etc.  Once he has it, any other suddenm unexpected movement, will probably result in nothing good happening. 

The simple fact that I dont walk around with hundreds in my pocket, could very well, be enough to piss this guy off, when he only gets $5, such as we saw with this article, and that was only change.  

Personally, these are stories that I like to read about. 
http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Haven-police-say-mugging-target-s-gun-trumped-464244.php


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 15, 2011)

Self defense to me starts with awareness: of your surroundings, the community you live in, of those in your immediate vicinity. Possibly talking your way out of a situation,and knowing when to shut up and walk away. After those it becomes a matter of protecting myself from harm.
Two short stories of self defense:
1. I was walking to work one day when two young men on bicycles road by then stopped, got off there bikes and approached me. They demanded that I hand over my back packs to them. I refused and a game of words ensued with threats by them being made. All was resolved when a police car came into sight and the two young men departed.
That night on the way home I stopped at a local convenience store and spoke to a person there known to run meth runners in the area. I explained to him the incident and described the young men. I also told him I would not relinquish my property and that someone would go to the hospital or worse if they pulled weapons on me. He was polite and said he perhaps knew the two men and would speak with them.
The next morning they once again went by me on their bikes, stopped and took a couple of steps towards me. They then held each held up one hand in a show of not wanting a confrontation and said they apologized for the misunderstanding the day before and wished me a good day. After which they got on their bikes and went on their way.



On another day I was walking to work and I saw a young man walking my way, by the way he was walking and dressed I knew he was a local gang member. As we came within talking distance I said good morning. He did a double take, looked momentarily confused then smiled and said good morning.
As I went home that night he was setting on a door step with some friends. Before I even got within speaking distance one of his companions started off the steps with malice in his eyes and face. The man I had spoke to in the morning grabbed the others arm said something I could not hear and then smiled in my direction. The 2nd youth sat back down and just nodded. I waved and nodded my head and continued on my way and never had any trouble in that area again.

Now in the first instance speaking to someone who knew me and who had some control of those in the meth dealing area saved me a possible combat situation 
In the 2nd being polite and friendly to someone looking for trouble gave me save passage in a neighborhood that was at war (shooting each other) with those outside of their group.


Self defense dose not always mean combat sometimes it just means being intelligent and/ or maybe asking for help with a situation that may occur. Defending one self from harm is also self defense.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 15, 2011)

MJS said:


> One of the reasons I'm not fond of stats, is because personally, I dont find them reliable. http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/New-Haven-police-say-mugging-target-s-gun-trumped-464244.php



Like them or not, you use them.  We all do.  And of course, statistics are accurate applied to the aggregate, not to the individual.  That's why insurance companies can accurately predict their financial exposure to a given liability, but can't tell you if *you* personally will be in a car accident or contract a disease.

However, the fact that they are accurate in the aggregate is a basis point that can be used to reach a logical conclusion.  I am not saying it is the only factor; else I'd be arguing with a guy as he stabbed me that _"The odds say you should not be doing this."_  I don't suggest slavishly paying attention to statistics and not the actual situation you find yourself in.

But you use statistics, as I said.  You are making an evaluation that includes what you think your chances are in any given situation.  Oops, late for an exit ramp on the highway.  Too late to go for it across several lanes of traffic?  What are the chances a cop sees you?  What are the chances someone is in your blind spot?  You make your decision and you act on it.  But yes, you're using statistics - your own internal statistics.

The main difference is that your internal statistics are based on your experiences and your anecdotal information.  Everybody knows bad news comes in threes.  Except it doesn't, not statistically.  If you decide it's true and order your life by it, well, that's up to you.  Now shift that to self-defense.  If you decide that every confrontation is liable to end in you being attacked no matter what response you use, so you _"might as well go down swinging,"_ (as Rich said) you may find yourself responding to a non-life threatening event in a way that now ensures it is a life-threatening event.

All I'm saying is that the moment you decide to respond with violence, you have moved the confrontation to a new level of risk, one which you may not have needed to do.  You may have lowered your personal risk somewhat by 'getting the jump' on the BG.  But you have pretty much eliminated the possibility that you're going to emerge unscathed.

I contend that such absolutist logic is not very good logic.  Sure, it's your choice, and you may well be right - attack first, attack hard, and don't even bother thinking there might be less risky options and you may come out on top.  But you might not be right also.

Self-defense means (to me) that my first responsibility is to myself.  I use the information available to me to make a decision when necessary.  Pre-determined responses are good for the military, but are not overly conducive to personal survival, IMHO.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Like them or not, you use them. We all do. And of course, statistics are accurate applied to the aggregate, not to the individual. That's why insurance companies can accurately predict their financial exposure to a given liability, but can't tell you if *you* personally will be in a car accident or contract a disease.
> 
> However, the fact that they are accurate in the aggregate is a basis point that can be used to reach a logical conclusion. I am not saying it is the only factor; else I'd be arguing with a guy as he stabbed me that _"The odds say you should not be doing this."_ I don't suggest slavishly paying attention to statistics and not the actual situation you find yourself in.
> 
> ...


 
Points taken Bill.   IMO, though, I wasn't intending my post to sound as if I was using stats.  I was thinking about this yesterday, after I logged off.  Should've replied when it was still fresh, but I'll do my best to recall what I was thinking. 

My point wasn't to point to numbers.  I was simply saying, and I believe you confirmed my point in one of your other posts, that stats aren't reliable.  You yourself said that each and every situation will be different.  So, that being said, that led me to say what I did about the use of stats....that its hard, if not impossible, to determine whether or not someone stood a better chance of survival, if they complied or didn't.  There was an article in todays paper about an 18yo male that shot/killed at 74yo male, outside a store.  The 18yo was looking for money, told the 74yo to put everything on the ground.  The 74yo attempted to grab the gun and was shot. The 18yo also shot him 2 more times.  The 18yo is also a suspect in the killing of another store clerk, but hasnt been charged yet.

While training against weapons or empty hand attacks doesnt ensure success, one would hope their odds would be slightly better than someone with no training.  Would this man have been shot anyways, if he complied?  No idea.  Would I still be shot if it were me instead of a 74yo man?  No idea.  

Let me ask you this, and correct me if I'm wrong here.  I'm reading your logic as, when faced with a weapon, comply.  Hand over whatever they want.  Hopefully, they'll take it, and leave, and it'll be a bad memory.  If, after you comply, things are still looking ugly, then fight back.  

My theory is to fight back right away, whether the badguy would walk away or not.

Am I correct so far?  If so, my question is...if, after we comply, and things still get ugly, its ok to fight back, but we could still end up hurt or dead, why not just fight back from the get go?  We're banking on 50/50 odds, that if we comply, we'll walk away unharmed.  But if we hand our keys and cash, the guy tells us to get into the truck, now we can fight back????  Why is it suddenly ok then?  To play devils advocate, we complied in the beginning, and nothing happened, so why not get into the trunk?  Crazy, I know. LOL.  For the record, I wouldn't get into the trunk.

Like I said before, there may not be another opportune time to fight back.  I'd rather fight back from the beginning.  I mean, this is akin to saying, "Ok, this guy is pissed at me for cutting him off and it looks like he's gonna hit me, but I'm gonna wait until the punch is almost to my face, before I do anything."  I say screw that.  When I see the guys hand draw back, thats when I'm going to do something.  If someone is rushing towards me, hands clenched, face red, teeth clenched, I'm not waiting until I can smell what he had for breakfast, I'm going to do something once he's within arms reach.  IMO, he wants to do more than just talk at that time, because if he didn't, he'd have been capable of talking to me from 5 ft away.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 16, 2011)

MJS said:


> Let me ask you this, and correct me if I'm wrong here.  I'm reading your logic as, when faced with a weapon, comply.  Hand over whatever they want.  Hopefully, they'll take it, and leave, and it'll be a bad memory.  If, after you comply, things are still looking ugly, then fight back.
> 
> My theory is to fight back right away, whether the badguy would walk away or not.



No, that's not quite my theory.  I'm sorry I'm not explaining it very well.

My theory is this - every situation is different. Having a pre-determined response to a given situation may not be the best way to obey the dictates of self-defense.

In other words, I don't know what I will do when faced with an assailant.  I may choose to fight immediately, I may attempt to flee, I may comply.  I may also change my mind as the situation changes and change my reaction accordingly.



> Am I correct so far?  If so, my question is...if, after we comply, and things still get ugly, its ok to fight back, but we could still end up hurt or dead, why not just fight back from the get go?  We're banking on 50/50 odds, that if we comply, we'll walk away unharmed.  But if we hand our keys and cash, the guy tells us to get into the truck, now we can fight back????  Why is it suddenly ok then?  To play devils advocate, we complied in the beginning, and nothing happened, so why not get into the trunk?  Crazy, I know. LOL.  For the record, I wouldn't get into the trunk.



Two things.  First, let's dispense with _"OK to fight back."_  It's always OK to fight back.  I do not have a moral compunction against violence, nor do I have any feelings of sympathy for bad guys.  My interest is in self-preservation in the kinds of situations we've been describing.  My reactions are geared towards that, not towards any desire to not harm others or feelings of moral correctness.

Second, the problem that I have with your scenario is that it essentially describes the confrontation as if it were a door from the "Let's Make a Deal" TV show.  In other words, it does not matter what you do - you can pick the door or not pick the door, but it either has a prize behind it or it does not.  You don't know what's behind the door, but whatever it is, that's not going to change.  In other words, your decisions are based on the idea that the bad guy knows what he is going to do, and nothing will change that.  In other words, if he's going to rob and shoot you, he will do that no matter if you comply or if you fight.

If that were the case, your logic would be perfectly sound.  After all, there is a 50% change he's going to try to kill you.  If you attack first, you may increase your odds of survival.  I'd make that choice too, if that's what the situation really was.

But I do not believe that's what the situation really is.  I do not believe that most bad guys know if they will or won't attack you no matter what your reactions are.  They have their tendencies, of course.  One may tend to be violent all the time; another may tend to rob and run.  And we do not know one from the other.  This makes the situation fluid and dynamic.  The possibilities are changing moment-by-moment for as long as the confrontation continues.  We can only know a few things with any certainty prior to the confrontation.

One is that all such confrontations are dangerous.  So we are at risk no matter what, to some degree.  Even an unarmed assailant can injure or kill a person, even accidentally.

Another is that the longer the confrontation goes on, the longer the risk continues.  The impetus is to end the confrontation as quickly as possible.

Another is that the overwhelming number of strong-arm or armed robberies do not end in injury or violence.  This is straight from the FBI's crime statistics.  No, it cannot predict individual behavior, but it is a factor and can be used to consider alternative reactions.

Other than that, there are only our own perceptions and instincts to guide us.  These may inform our decision as well.  For example, whether or not we can run away - if the assailant is armed with a knife and not a gun, and he's a big fat guy (in my case, fatter than me, eh?), it might be fairly simple to just run away.  If he looks athletic, maybe not.  If he looks doped up, he might be fairly simple to take down - or just the opposite.  If he has accomplices, the situation changes.  If he is out in the open and looking scared, again, different circumstances.  Does the gun look real?  How much of a threat does he really appear to be?  Is this a bad neighborhood?  Is it day or night?  Are there weapons of opportunity laying around?  Have their been news stories about robbers in the area, or stories about a bad guy robbing and killing people?  Etc, etc.  All of these things will inform my decision, as well as an understanding that he probably does not know precisely what he will do if I a) comply, b) run away, c) attack him or d) simply refuse to comply.  He may have a preconceived notion - in which case he is indeed the door from _"Let's Make a Deal,"_ but seriously, what do you think the chances are of that?



> Like I said before, there may not be another opportune time to fight back.  I'd rather fight back from the beginning.  I mean, this is akin to saying, "Ok, this guy is pissed at me for cutting him off and it looks like he's gonna hit me, but I'm gonna wait until the punch is almost to my face, before I do anything."  I say screw that.  When I see the guys hand draw back, thats when I'm going to do something.  If someone is rushing towards me, hands clenched, face red, teeth clenched, I'm not waiting until I can smell what he had for breakfast, I'm going to do something once he's within arms reach.  IMO, he wants to do more than just talk at that time, because if he didn't, he'd have been capable of talking to me from 5 ft away.



You are right that opportunities can pass while taking a different course of action.  There is no guarantee in any confrontation that you are going to survive or survive without serious injuries.

However, if you want to use simple black-and-white logic, I can break that part of it down for you.

Using your assumptions, the bad guy either is or is not going to attack me.  Let's say he is going to attack me.

If I comply first, he will attack me.  I may have lost the best opportunity to defend myself.

If I attack first, he would have attacked me anyway.  However, I may have given myself an advantage.

Now, let's look at it the other way.  Let's say he was NOT going to attack me.  After all, even you do not say it is a guarantee he is going to attack you, right?

If I comply first, he will not attack me.  He takes my wallet, I leave, I'm not injured.

If I attack first, now he has to either defend himself or run away.  In either case, by attacking him, I am exposing myself to possible injury or death, even if by something stupid like falling on him and puncturing myself on his knife or grabbing his gun badly and it goes off and shoots me.  Heck, I've blocked a punch directly into my own face before in the dojo, I can believe that under such conditions, I might very well end up defending myself and injuring myself at the same time.  I might also prevail, or force him to run away.

But the point is this.  The moment I engage in a violent response, I have ended the highest possibilities of walking away uninjured.  In three out of four possible scenarios, I am probably going to get hurt.  In one scenario I will not get hurt, and in another, I'm probably going to get hurt even though I would not have if I had complied and walked away.

Given that in my belief, confrontations of this nature are fluid and dynamic, and the person confronting me does not know ahead of time what they will definitely do, I will try to make the choice that I believe favors my own survival above all.  I don't think that the bad guy has a set plan, so I'm not going to react like he does; unless circumstances at the time convince me that this is the best option for my survival.

In short, my thoughts are that the old adage that you must assume every confrontation will end in violence _is not good advice_, for simple mathematical reasons.  It demands that you respond with violence to every confrontation, which dramatically increases your chances of being injured or killed.  I don't think that there is a simple platitude that describes the best possible response to a confrontation.  I think confrontations are far too complex for that, and each one requires you to use your best judgment at that time to make a decision and act on it.  I'd say prepare for the possibility of violence, including learning how to fight and win, but if survival is your goal, consider options that might increase the chances of that happening.


----------



## MJS (Jun 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No, that's not quite my theory. I'm sorry I'm not explaining it very well.
> 
> My theory is this - every situation is different. Having a pre-determined response to a given situation may not be the best way to obey the dictates of self-defense.
> 
> In other words, I don't know what I will do when faced with an assailant. I may choose to fight immediately, I may attempt to flee, I may comply. I may also change my mind as the situation changes and change my reaction accordingly.


 
Ok, thanks for the clarification.   I was just confused when I read this in your first post:

"But in fact, most who rob do not kill; they rob and go. Statistics are on my side, and yeah, I've done my homework. Despite what the 'common wisdom' says about armed robbers, the facts are that they mostly do not kill their victims. Of course I am not going to blindly put my faith in what statistics say; I will engage my eyes, ears, and brain; if I *do* think I'm going to be killed anyway after turning over my wallet, then I'm going to choose some other response."

Likewise, many times myself, I've said that I like to assess each situation and decide on a response accordingly.  This isn't to mean that I'm not going to do anything, just that I need to figure out when and what.  






> Two things. First, let's dispense with _"OK to fight back."_ It's always OK to fight back. I do not have a moral compunction against violence, nor do I have any feelings of sympathy for bad guys. My interest is in self-preservation in the kinds of situations we've been describing. My reactions are geared towards that, not towards any desire to not harm others or feelings of moral correctness.


 
Ok, sounds like we're on the same page. 



> Second, the problem that I have with your scenario is that it essentially describes the confrontation as if it were a door from the "Let's Make a Deal" TV show. In other words, it does not matter what you do - you can pick the door or not pick the door, but it either has a prize behind it or it does not. You don't know what's behind the door, but whatever it is, that's not going to change. In other words, your decisions are based on the idea that the bad guy knows what he is going to do, and nothing will change that. In other words, if he's going to rob and shoot you, he will do that no matter if you comply or if you fight.
> 
> If that were the case, your logic would be perfectly sound. After all, there is a 50% change he's going to try to kill you. If you attack first, you may increase your odds of survival. I'd make that choice too, if that's what the situation really was.
> 
> ...


 
When I was working in Corrections, any time I interacted with an inmate 1 on 1 or a group of them, no matter if they were in there for a petty drug offense or looking at life for murder, I never assumed, no matter how 'nice' they 'appeared' to be, that they wouldn't attempt to do something to me, have a weapon, looking to set me up somehow, etc.  Hell, I had one guy tell me that he wouldn't think twice about taking a swing at me.  Now, this guy never gave me a hard time, and overall, was generally nice to me.  Yet given that he had nothing to lose, so to speak, even if he was compelled to hit me, whats the worst that gonna happen?  Big deal, he loses his phone privledges for a week, so?  He'll get 'em back.  Likewise, I think it'd be foolish for an LEO to assume that everyone on a traffic stop will comply.  I think we've seen enough video footage to say otherwise.

My point is....yes, I admit, its very possible the 16yo kid looking to score some quick $$ for some dope, will take my cash and run, using the knife or gun, be it real or fake, for nothing than intimidation, and take off running.  I dont read minds, so no, I dont know what he'll do.  Take my stuff and run, take it and shoot me in the leg, take it, see that he only got $10 and kill me, kill me for the fun of it, whatever.

You yourself, said that you may choose from a number of responses.  This is fine of course...thats your choice.   When I say assess the situation, thats exactly what I'm doing....assessing, to figure out the best response.  Hmm..ok, this guy is a skinny *** twig, who I could probably break in 2, this guy is built like Arnold times 10, wait, this guy has a knife to my back, and his buddy has a gun.  

All that said, unless the odds appear to be strongly against me, I'm going to assume the worst, and fight back, when the best opportunity presents itself.  His intent may say otherwise, afterall I dont know what he's thinking.  Maybe its a bb gun and he's looking for some drug cash..quick.

As for the FBI stats....I still dont put faith in them.  I can point to a number of recent incidents that would prove otherwise.   




> You are right that opportunities can pass while taking a different course of action. There is no guarantee in any confrontation that you are going to survive or survive without serious injuries.
> 
> However, if you want to use simple black-and-white logic, I can break that part of it down for you.
> 
> ...


 
As I've said before, I've talked my way out of many confrontations, which had the potential to get ugly.  I'm not ashamed of that at all.  No, it wasn't a blow to my ego Bill.   I wasn't upset with myself because I didn't have to chance to open a can of whoop ***.   But, until the moment the other guy walked away, yes, I was thinking, "Yup, this may take a turn for the worse."  Likewise, I fully understand and accept the fact that I may get hurt or worse.  In the end Bill, for the reasons I've listed before, I've reduced alot of 'bad' happening to me, for the simple fact that I keep to myself, avoid potential bad areas, ie: bars, clubs, bad section of town, dont hang out with people who're bad or have the potential to bring trouble to themselves, and I'm caught in the crossfire.  Hard as it is sometimes, I do my best to keep my roadrage in check.   If I need to use the ATM, I go during the day and 9 times out of 10, use the drive up.  I do my best to be aware of whats going on around me.  Pull into a parking lot/garage, yes, I'm looking around to see whats going on around me.  Lock the car doors when I'm inside, keep ample distance between me and the car in front of me.  So yes, already, I've cut down on the potential risk of bad things.  

IMO, I'd rather go in guarded, and gradually ease back, rather than go in totally relaxed.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 17, 2011)

MJS said:


> IMO, I'd rather go in guarded, and gradually ease back, rather than go in totally relaxed.



I actually think our responses are pretty much similar in the end - colored by our perceptions and experiences. I've never worked in corrections, but I am going to hazard a guess that people in prison, especially those doing life, have a lot fewer reasons for refraining from violence than people on the street.  I'm not suggesting you are wrong, just that your experiences with bad guys are from the ones who are locked up and have a mindset and set of responses that may be different from what those _'on the street'_ might do - even the same guys might behave differently on the outside when they do have (as you put it) _'something to lose'_.

I actually thought you were saying that if you were confronted, you would assume that the assailant was going to try to harm you and therefore you would attack immediately in all situations.  My point was only that if your goal is self-defense (to include non-injury), then that might not be the best response to ALL such situations.  It sounds after our discussion as though you'd go through the same kind of mental checklist I would.  Perhaps our end-decisions would come out slightly different based on our life experiences, but the process would be the same.  Am I right?

This has always been my 'gold standard' for self-defense.  In my opinion, an ideal response which shows precisely the kind of threat evaluation that is geared to self-preservation:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/

_"While John Lovell was finishing up his sandwich around 11:15 p.m. last  Wednesday, two masked men armed with guns barged into the restaurant,  according to a statement from the Plantation police. After taking money  from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet,  police said."_

There is more to the story...  When the robbers asked Lovell for his wallet, he complied.  He was armed the entire time; he could have jumped up and started shooting as soon as they entered.  But he evaluated his options and decided to comply as the best self-defense strategy available to him at that time.  It was only when the robbers started herding the customers into a back room that he changed his strategy, drew his weapon, and opened fire.

Could he have been more effective if he had opened fire immediately instead of initially complying with the robbers?  Maybe.  We don't know.

Could he have been killed by waiting too long to engage them?  Definitely.  But in this case, he did not get killed.

Could the robbers merely have intended to lock the customers and employees into the back room and escape without harming them?  Also a possibility, but the Major thought that the threat level had changed, and he changed his response accordingly.

I think the Major exemplifies the kind of thinking that makes a great deal of sense if one is talking about _'self-defense'_ and not _'defending the community'_ or _'standing up for what's right'_ or any number of other things that, while important, are not _'self-defense'_.  Had the robbers not tried to herd the customers into the back room, he would have lost his wallet and not drawn his weapon.  It was a calculated risk - he apparently felt that the least risk to his own life was in complying - at least until the threat level changed.

That, to me, is really classic tactically-sound self-defense thinking and actions.  The man was no coward, nor did he grovel, beg, or plead for his life (as many on MT have stated in the past if one does not instantly respond by shooting up the bad guys).  He chose the response that he felt was the lowest threat, and when the threat changed, his response changed also.  Situations like this are fluid and dynamic.  Responses can be tailored to the situation at hand.  There are no guarantees that his tactics would have worked - he might have been shot dead.  But it is a calculated risk.  I agree with his thinking.


----------



## MJS (Jun 20, 2011)

Sorry, been busy, but I did want to reply. 




Bill Mattocks said:


> I actually think our responses are pretty much similar in the end - colored by our perceptions and experiences. I've never worked in corrections, but I am going to hazard a guess that people in prison, especially those doing life, have a lot fewer reasons for refraining from violence than people on the street. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, just that your experiences with bad guys are from the ones who are locked up and have a mindset and set of responses that may be different from what those _'on the street'_ might do - even the same guys might behave differently on the outside when they do have (as you put it) _'something to lose'_.


 
I agree.  



> I actually thought you were saying that if you were confronted, you would assume that the assailant was going to try to harm you and therefore you would attack immediately in all situations. My point was only that if your goal is self-defense (to include non-injury), then that might not be the best response to ALL such situations. It sounds after our discussion as though you'd go through the same kind of mental checklist I would. Perhaps our end-decisions would come out slightly different based on our life experiences, but the process would be the same. Am I right?
> 
> This has always been my 'gold standard' for self-defense. In my opinion, an ideal response which shows precisely the kind of threat evaluation that is geared to self-preservation:
> 
> ...


 
Did he comply though?  I mean, reading the article, it doesn't say, but I suppose it could be read that way.  This part:

"After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said.
As the two tried to force Lovell into the ladies room where he thought he would be killed, the former Marine reached behind his back to grab his .45-caliber handgun, which he fired seven times at the two men, according to the police statement."

So, yes, he could've handed it over and then they were going to force him into the bathroom or did he not comply, and then they forced him in.  Either way, I'm glad that all turned out well for the man.  

As for what I said earlier....yes, when asked for my keys, car, cash, I'd hand it over, and if/when the opportunity presented itself, would most likely attempt to fight back.  My point was simply to say that during that moment, he's expecting to see me move, so my hope would be to mask my compliance with a defense.  

I did want to post this recent article:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-armed-robbery-0619-20110618,0,2084345.story



> HARTFORD
> Five people were arrested on Church Street Saturday morning after police said they robbed eight men at gunpoint in a parking lot.
> Police Sgt. Paul Cicero said the victims were walking back to their cars  parked in a parking lot near the intersection of Ann Street and Chapel Street North in the downtown area  when they were approached by five people. One of the suspects produced a 9mm handgun, Cicero said.
> 
> ...


 
I wasn't there, so I can only go on what the article says, but this reads to me, that once the badguys confronted the victims, they immediately began assaulting them.  Did they victims comply initially and were then assaulted?  Were they assaulted right off the bat?  Dont know.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 20, 2011)

MJS said:


> Did he comply though?  I mean, reading the article, it doesn't say, but I suppose it could be read that way.  This part:
> 
> "After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said.
> As the two tried to force Lovell into the ladies room where he thought he would be killed, the former Marine reached behind his back to grab his .45-caliber handgun, which he fired seven times at the two men, according to the police statement."
> ...



Yes, he handed it over.  It was not in that story but was in others.  He was interviewed at one point - I had the link and even posted it on MT once, but I can't find it now.



> As for what I said earlier....yes, when asked for my keys, car, cash, I'd hand it over, and if/when the opportunity presented itself, would most likely attempt to fight back.  My point was simply to say that during that moment, he's expecting to see me move, so my hope would be to mask my compliance with a defense.
> 
> I did want to post this recent article:
> http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-armed-robbery-0619-20110618,0,2084345.story
> ...



I agree, and I understand.  But I track news stories with the keywords "victim fought back."  I don't post them all - there are a lot of them.  In some of them, victims fight back and win.  In others, they lose.  In some of them, they were the most recent victim of a BG or gang of BG's (suspected) of other recent robberies, but they fought back and were the first ones killed/injured - others apparently escaped unharmed up to that point.  Again, nothing is carved in stone; even a BG who has not injured or killed before can suddenly decide to do it for little or no reason, so you can't guarantee that not fighting back will save you from being injured or killed.  All I can say is that once you start to fight back, you pretty much eliminate the option where you walked away unhurt.  That's probably not going to happen now, unless you are that lucky or that good.  I've never been in a fight yet where I didn't get mussed up some, although I have never been robbed.


----------



## chinto (Jun 20, 2011)

to use the KISS principle,  Staying alive in a dangerous situation...

Means... any thing necessary!  get out before its fully a situation that is a treat, defusing it if you can.. if not fight, and cripple or kill if needed to survive.... but self defense is doing what must be done to protect yourself from harm.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Jun 22, 2011)

Bill & MJS: Between you guys you've pretty comprehensively explored 2 perceptions of the same idea so thank you  Made for quite an interesting read!

For myself personally, Self Defence as said is doing whatever it takes to get home safe. That's the way we train it at our school as well. It involves picking up on pre fight indicators (physical, verbal, environmental), using awareness to not be in the situation in the first place, verbal deescalation (both passive and agressive to match the threat), physical de-escalation, pre emptive striking, escape options and understanding that MA and SD are 2 very very different things to name the key components as I understand it so far. Stevebjj put it quite well with his post 



> Self defense is everything you do to avoid physical altercation.  If  you're fighting with someone, you have fundamentally failed at self  defense.



However if you do need to fight, I believe a strong understanding of local laws including use of force, duty of retreat etc can only be a good thing and while it may not be the explicit job of the MA/SD school to teach this aspect of it, IMO such training where possible should be introduced at least at a base level to all students. While it may not guarantee that as a MAist you will never get mugged, I think it'd go a long way in keeping MAists out of trouble themselves. In our school, we refer to the aftermath of confrontation as "The Second Wave"


----------



## MJS (Jun 23, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, he handed it over. It was not in that story but was in others. He was interviewed at one point - I had the link and even posted it on MT once, but I can't find it now.


 
No problem with the link.  I'll take your word on it. 





> I agree, and I understand. But I track news stories with the keywords "victim fought back." I don't post them all - there are a lot of them. In some of them, victims fight back and win. In others, they lose. In some of them, they were the most recent victim of a BG or gang of BG's (suspected) of other recent robberies, but they fought back and were the first ones killed/injured - others apparently escaped unharmed up to that point. Again, nothing is carved in stone; even a BG who has not injured or killed before can suddenly decide to do it for little or no reason, so you can't guarantee that not fighting back will save you from being injured or killed. All I can say is that once you start to fight back, you pretty much eliminate the option where you walked away unhurt. That's probably not going to happen now, unless you are that lucky or that good. I've never been in a fight yet where I didn't get mussed up some, although I have never been robbed.


 
Points taken.  So, in a nutshell....the better route is to: assess each situation on a seperate basis.  Comply.  If he BG walks away, chalk it up to a loss, call the cops, give a good description, and hope that one day, you can testify in court and see this guy get locked up.  If you comply and things get worse, such as with the Marine, fight back.  Either way, whatever you do, be prepared, if you do fight, to get hurt or worse.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 23, 2011)

MJS said:


> Points taken.  So, in a nutshell....the better route is to: assess each situation on a seperate basis.  Comply.  If he BG walks away, chalk it up to a loss, call the cops, give a good description, and hope that one day, you can testify in court and see this guy get locked up.  If you comply and things get worse, such as with the Marine, fight back.  Either way, whatever you do, be prepared, if you do fight, to get hurt or worse.



I also agree with you - if your assessment of the situation makes you believe you're about to get hurt no matter what you do, strike first, strike hard, and don't stop striking until the threat has passed!

I have been told by people who apparently know that if you get into a fight with a person armed with a knife, accept it as a given that you are going to get cut.  That seems like a good concept in general - if you fight, you are going to get hurt.  I can accept that.

I also like Supra Vijai's comments about knowing the laws regarding self-defense where you live.  As you and I both know, if the police become involved in a situation where someone is injured and more so if someone dies, even if you used good sense and complied with the law and avoid prosecution, your life is not going to be the same as it was before the incident.  When someone dies and the police show up, nobody walks away without their life being much more complicated, whether they are in the right or in the wrong legally.


----------



## Indie12 (Jun 25, 2011)

MJS said:


> As a spin off to my "How do you define martial arts?" thread in the GMA section, the mention of SD came up in that thread, so rather than side track it, I thought I'd start a new thread.
> 
> So, how do you define self defense?


 
Well, first of all

1) Martial Arts does include Self Defense, so technically the definition is the same.

2) I personally dislike the term "Self Defense" rather I go with 'Defensive Tactics'. Self Defense implies your only defending yourself, Defensive Tactics can imply defending either yourself, a loved one, a friend, a stranger, or a public member.

Haven't we already had this discussion?


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jun 25, 2011)

Self- defense is avoiding getting into a fight but if retreat or escape is not possible then it is protecting oneself/family/property by using a reasonable force to repel the attack.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Jun 25, 2011)

Indie12 said:


> Martial Arts does include Self Defense, so technically the definition is the same.



Could you please elaborate? A lot of it would have to do with the art studied as well wouldn't it? For example, I train Ninjutsu and learn techniques from each of the main schools that are taught (Gyokko, Koto, Togakure etc). While all of these techniques COULD be used in self defence, without some adaptation and context they wouldn't be the best way to go in a street fight IMO. As my instructor explained it, you don't expect a street predator to bow in, assume posture and attack in a coherent preset pattern. Street violence is chaotic to say the least. Not to mention that in a lot of very real ways the lessons from SD classes and MA ones are very different and each with it's own respective pros and cons.


----------



## Balrog (Jun 28, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> As my instructor explained it, you don't expect a street predator to bow in, assume posture and attack in a coherent preset pattern.


 
True.  However, one-steps like that have a very valid usage.  They teach the beginning concepts of timing, distancing and control, and serve as a transition to free-sparring.  And there are times in a sparring class when I will simply cut loose, charge the student I'm sparring with while yelling at the top of my lungs and swinging wildly with both hands.  It raises their stress level greatly and if they don't "feed me a foot", there's a problem.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Jun 28, 2011)

Balrog said:


> True.  However, one-steps like that have a very valid usage.  They teach the beginning concepts of timing, distancing and control, and serve as a transition to free-sparring.  And there are times in a sparring class when I will simply cut loose, charge the student I'm sparring with while yelling at the top of my lungs and swinging wildly with both hands.  It raises their stress level greatly and if they don't "feed me a foot", there's a problem.



Oh I completely agree! I love the traditional side of training most personally. While I see the definite need for and validity of the street/self defence stuff, the traditional kata and exercises are where I am drawn to the most. My post was simply in reply to a previous comment by Indie12 that MA and SD were the same thing. I don't believe they are the same but rather complement each other brilliantly. 

Pressure testing and adrenaline based stress response is something we go through a fair bit as well especially as you advance through the ranks. For instance we had a very special class tonight where we explored a different approach to a school we have been studying for the past 6 months. During one of the techniques as I was acting as Tori for Sensei, he mentioned adding in a kiai with each strike from Uke and demonstrated. It was quite controlled and deliberate... and I completely forgot what I was meant to do and focused on just getting back out of the way of the sword cut coming in.


----------



## seasoned (Jun 28, 2011)

Re: How Do You Define "Self Defense?"

Someone taking you where you don't want to go, and you having the ability to stop them.


----------

