# If it's not close quarters it's not self defense?



## Joab (May 14, 2010)

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


----------



## MJS (May 14, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


 
IMO, I think that attempting to flee, attempting being the key word here, is something that should always be done.  However, people tend to use that as a crutch, thinking that fleeing has some magical powers, that its the end all, be all solution, that thats all you need to do.  To that, I strongly disagree.  Again, it will depend on the situation.  Someone follows me into a parking lot, jumps out of their car, yelling and walking quickly towards me, saying I cut them off, well, IMO, theres not much time to talk.  I'm not going to play games and start running around my car.  Even if I thought I could run away, I'm no track star, so this guy could easily chase after me.  I am not leaving my wife behind, so what am I supposed to do, run and leave her?  This is why I say that its an option, not a solution. 

Now, it is possible, for me to move back, and while doing so, say something along the lines of, "Get away from me.  I dont want any trouble."  Now, should he continue, I'm well within my right to defend myself.  I gave him a choice, he didn't take it, so now I'm escalating.

However, I think that SD extends even further from actual combat.  SD is being aware.  If you see something that doesnt look right, get an uneasy feeling, and take an alternate route to your destination, ie: you're walking to the entrance of the mall, see a group of questionable people, perhaps enter via another entrance.  You see someone hanging around near your car.  How about going back to the mall and getting security.

Back to verbally talking your way out.  Make no mistake about it, I'll always attempt that, and there've been many times when thats just what I did....I was firm, confident, made it known that I wasn't backing down, and sure enough, it worked.  

So, the moral of the story....you dont have to be in a physical confrontation to defend yourself.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 14, 2010)

I think that's an incredibly limited view of self defence, honestly (er, MJS got in ahead of me, this in entirely to do with the OP).

As has been said many (many, many, many...) times over now, self defence is far less to do with the physical skills, and more about being aware enough to avoid such things in the first place. The physical is really best thought of as a fall-back skill set. For example, a large section of our self defence curriculum, so to speak, is focused on getting distance so you can escape safely, and includes distancing, verbal de-escalation, understanding of body language and pre-fight indicators, understanding the psychology of fight-flight-freeze, and more before we even get to pre-emptive striking, group situations, close quarter brawling, street throws, street kicks, weapon defence and more. Hmm, you know what, only two of those count as close quarters to me, and it all counts as self defence.

As to if someone attacks you, then moves back (out of close quarters range), you should be able to flee, well, not necessarily. Why have they moved back? Is it because they think they've done enough damage, or because they're waiting to see what you do, then attack again (and what they may be waiting for is for you to try to leave). People can cover a distance much quicker than most think, so that would rule out their basic premise for me.

Does it become a fight? Do you mean a match fight? Maybe. But then again, it can be a match fight in close quarters as well, if both are refusing to try to get out when the opportunity presents itself. Then again, at a distance, if they're still sizing you up, and obviously ready to continue, how are you not still defending yourself by keeping them in your attention (and not retreating if it doesn't feel safe to do so)?

Frankly, once again this is so open that it's impossible to make these clean-cut statements, and anyone making them are trying to prey on fear by appearing to have answers that "no one else has!", and that doesn't seem like someone I'd personally listen to much. There's just not enough understanding for me to think they know much about what they're talking about. Martial arts are not designed for self defence, I personally think they should stop being marketed as such (my current kick). This is just another example.


----------



## Balrog (May 14, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


I'm assuming that firearms do not enter into the picture here, because they change the definition of "range".

Having said that, assuming that the situation has degenerated to actual violence, the first and best self-defense is to run like hell.  The second best self-defense is to disable your attacker enough to allow you to run like hell.

The sad reality is that once blows are struck, we martial artists are going to be hung out to dry.  The bad guy will probably sue us and we'll wind up in front of a jury of people who think they are martial experts because they watched "Kung Fu Panda" or something, and who think that you should have been able to jump over the roof of the building to escape.  If you can demonstrate that every one of your actions was oriented towards allowing you to escape the situation, you'll be much better off.


----------



## Haakon (May 15, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> As to if someone attacks you, then moves back (out of close quarters range), you should be able to flee, well, not necessarily. Why have they moved back? Is it because they think they've done enough damage, or because they're waiting to see what you do, then attack again (and what they may be waiting for is for you to try to leave). People can cover a distance much quicker than most think, so that would rule out their basic premise for me.



I agree, most people don't realize how little time it takes an attacker to cover a pretty large distance. The danger zone, especially if the opponent has a weapon, is quite large. 1.5 seconds for an attacker to cover 21 feet. I wonder how many people have heard of the Tueller Drill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill 

1.5 seconds is not much time for most people to react to an attack and defend themselves. For many people that entire time could be consumed by surprise and "is that guy really doing what I think he's doing" thoughts before defense is even initiated.

I really hate the idea of fleeing for 3 main reasons:
1) If I'm not alone I am NOT leaving family or friends behind
2) I'm big and slow and couldn't run far, just about anyone could catch me. I don't know if I could cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, so your typical attacker could probably catch me as soon as I turned around to flee.
3) Turning my back on a threat seems like a really, really, bad idea.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 15, 2010)

Haakon beat me to the Tueller Drill. But I will expound upon the AOJ Triad:


This is common training standard throughout the US at least, and I like to call it "The triangle that makes things square".

It is comprised of three things:

*ABILITY* (Is this person/this group physically capable of carying out the threat?) : Does this person possess an advantage in size/strength, weapon or dangerous instrument, known fighting skill( known by you before or during the incident; finding out after the fact is inadmissible), Able bodied v. disabled ( Disability does NOT have to be visible or obvious), male v. female, force of numbers, young v. elderly and so on.


*OPPORTUNITY *( is this person/this group physically close enough to carry out the threat without any obstacle or impediment stopping them?) : For example, as exemplified in the Tueller Drill, a person with a knife is a deadly force threat at 21 feet, but not at 200, across four lanes of traffic. Ability exists but there is no Opportunity, and therefore no Jeopardy.

Swap out the knife with a rifle, and Opportunity is REintroduced.


*JEOPARDY* (Is this person/this group in the process of carrying out the threat, or otherwise behaving in such a way that a reasonable person in your place would conclude that they were in IMMINENT DANGER ( I.E. _"If I wait any longer to do something it will be too late to do ANYTHING"_) of death or grave bodily harm( Protracted injury/loss of use of limb, organ or sense, rape, and in many jurisdictions, arson or kidnap) : You see a guy with rifle at 200 feet away. he is slinging it over his shoulder and is dressed in hunting gear. Ability and Opportunity are both present but no Jeopardy exists.

Swap the scenario around and have the guy unsling his rifle, work the bolt and level the muzzle at YOU, and all three elements are present and you are in the clear to respond with deadly force should you have the means.

All three elements must be present *at the same time* for you to be in the clear as far as deadly force, but they're a good idea to keep in mind even in cases of nondeadly force( after all if there's any group that understands that even hands can kill, it's us).

Some jurisdictions add a fourth criteria: *PRECLUSION*. It can basically be boiled down to say that if you are not precluded from escaping *in complete safety*( I.e. you are not required to turn and walk away right as a punch/stick/stab is inbound or close enough to be) that you must do so or attempt to do so before your use of force can be justified.

I do not use this fourth category except for informational purposes since I reason that, if I can escape in complete safety, "Imminent danger" has not manifested.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (May 15, 2010)

It's all situational.

 Do bear in mind that running can instill an overly defensive mindset or worse can lead to a panicky mindset, these can lead to death.

 In nature and in war before rapid fire firearms, most death happens when the victum breaks and runs. They tend to be run down and killed.

 If I see the situation before I (and someone with me) are in it, then retrat is a great idea, but when threatend I'll chose a counter assult over running most of the time.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 15, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


 
Well that's the very problem--the predominant number of people who teach martial arts might be great at knowing about *martial arts* but don't know **** about *self defense*.


----------



## jks9199 (May 15, 2010)

The goal of *self defense* is to deal with an attacker/assailant in order to escape from danger, not subdue them or fight them to a draw or win in the eyes of some judge.  That doesn't automatically mean you run as soon as the assailant backs up; deterring further attack to enable a safe escape is a part of self defense.  However, if you've achieved some variably defined point of safety, and you choose to re-engage the assailant without justification, you've moved out of self defense.  Whether for police or civilians, the courts have been reluctant to draw a bright line to identify that point, because it is a very situational decision.


----------



## Joab (May 17, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> I think that's an incredibly limited view of self defence, honestly (er, MJS got in ahead of me, this in entirely to do with the OP).
> 
> As has been said many (many, many, many...) times over now, self defence is far less to do with the physical skills, and more about being aware enough to avoid such things in the first place. The physical is really best thought of as a fall-back skill set. For example, a large section of our self defence curriculum, so to speak, is focused on getting distance so you can escape safely, and includes distancing, verbal de-escalation, understanding of body language and pre-fight indicators, understanding the psychology of fight-flight-freeze, and more before we even get to pre-emptive striking, group situations, close quarter brawling, street throws, street kicks, weapon defence and more. Hmm, you know what, only two of those count as close quarters to me, and it all counts as self defence.
> 
> ...


 
To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact 
at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar 
you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close 
combat

This is a very brief quote, if you would like to explore the system more thoroughly please go to www.attackproof.com


----------



## girlbug2 (May 17, 2010)

I am not now a good runner, nor have I ever been. That was a major motivation in my learning self defense to begin with. If my attacker is young and fit, that is all the more reason to make sure they're not getting up before I break away and run.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 17, 2010)

Okay.... not really sure what the quote was supposed to tell me, to be honest. "To be completely passive you must remain in contact at all times (?)" What? I can't be passive on the other side of the bar from a potential attacker when I'm hanging with my friends? I have to go and remain in contact? And if an altercation does take place, if I shove him away and trigger his flight responce, I can't be passive, but if he grabs me and drags me down on the stcky, smelly bar floor, then I can? Really, steer clear of anything that gives finite examples like "only" and "always" as a general rule, they're preying on emotional weaknesses (in this case, fear).

I went to the site you linked, and frankly, it's just a huge marketing ad for scared people. Phrases like "... the only system teaching true, FREE FORM, adaptive self defence" and "REAL VIOLENCE IS CHAOS; ADAPT OR DIE" have me laughing at the insecurity of those that put this out there, and those that believe it just because it's on a website.

The message behind the entire site is "Be scared! Listen to what I tell you because I'm telling you to be scared! You're gonna be attacked! And I'm the only one telling you the truth, no-one has told you this before! Listen to how good I am! I'm saving you from something that you didn't even know you needed saving from! Are you scared yet?" In other terms, it's the same as a little kid, the more noise they make, the more attention they get, and it doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention. In fact, the bad attention is easier to get....

This is shown in things like "More endorsements!" (look at how good I am!), and "Guided Chaos copycats" (look how good I am, others want to be me!). Nothing truly worth it needs to shout it this loudly. You also have the typical scare-mongering aspects, here shown in two lists of 10 "facts". The first is 10 advantages, in which a big deal is made of belittling martial art systems and BJJ/MMA approaches by stating that you "don't waste valuable time memorizing a million moves" (showing no understanding of how a martial art is actually trained... although I feel that is a deliberate misrepresentation) and "fight from the ground without having to wrestle someone bigger and stronger". There is also the typical promises beyond belief ("develop a liquid body that can't be broken, locked or grappled", "develop hyper-balance..." I mean really, what on earth can they be talking about? Hyper-balance? An unbreakable body? Are they for real, and do people really believe this?), and the ever-present "deadly" aspects that everyone needs... regardless of the fact that truly lethal techniques are innappropriate for what they are purporting to be ("You train 100% deadly striking all the time!" Really? And no-one dies, I suppose.... deadly....hmmm).

This is followed by the 10 "BRUTAL TRUTHS ABOUT REAL VIOLENCE", which basically say "you will be attacked, you don't know when, you don't know how, and anything you've trained won't work, if you've trained, you'll be killed, all assaults are going to kill you...."etc etc etc. 

There's a lot more there to go through, but there is a far more important question here (although I feel I know the answer already): Why do you put any stock in this over-blown scare-mongering ad at all?


----------



## mook jong man (May 17, 2010)

It is possible , I start to develop a " Liquid Body " after about ten Crown Lagers .
 But whilst staggering home from the pub I can't say I am feeling too " Hyper-Balanced ".


----------



## Explorer (May 17, 2010)

The FIRST question I'd ask these good people is what is my responsibility if the attacker is using a long contact weapon ... like a 6 or 7 foot stick ... or, worse, a distance weapon like a gun? What if they're throwing rocks at me or other innocents? 

I suppose if your really break down my FIRST question, it's really three questions ... all having to do with distance and an escalating threat. Seems to me they haven't thought about it.

Best Wishes,

Explorer


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 17, 2010)

Joab said:


> To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
> To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact
> at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar
> you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close
> ...


 

That right there pretty much explains it all. Not these guys again....


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2010)

Joab said:


> To briefly qoute the email sent to me:
> To be completely passive, you have to remain in physical contact
> at all times (because in reality, if you have enough room to spar
> you have enough room to run--real mayhem only occurs in close
> ...


 
Some good points by people here.  There are other phases to combat other than the physcal.  Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.  

What about the before phase?  As I said, that is where the SD really begins.  It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier.  If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.  

Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD.  Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything.  I'm more than happy with what I already train in.  I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> Some good points by people here. There are other phases to combat other than the physcal. Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.
> 
> What about the before phase? As I said, that is where the SD really begins. It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier. If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.
> 
> Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD. Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything. I'm more than happy with what I already train in. I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.


 

Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.


----------



## MJS (May 17, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.


 
I believe it.  Of course, I just looked at their homepage.  Just as I suspected.  I was going to pick on a few things I saw, but opted not to waste my time.   Oh well....


----------



## tellner (May 17, 2010)

I knew there was a reason I didn't like guns. They aren't "close quarters" enough. 

It's not Real Self Defense(tm) unless you're putting yourself in as much danger as possible.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> There's a lot more there to go through, but there is a far more important question here (although I feel I know the answer already): Why do you put any stock in this over-blown scare-mongering ad at all?


 
Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area. 

Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

Explorer said:


> The FIRST question I'd ask these good people is what is my responsibility if the attacker is using a long contact weapon ... like a 6 or 7 foot stick ... or, worse, a distance weapon like a gun? What if they're throwing rocks at me or other innocents?
> 
> I suppose if your really break down my FIRST question, it's really three questions ... all having to do with distance and an escalating threat. Seems to me they haven't thought about it.
> 
> ...


 
This presupposes that the attack is hand to hand, unarmed attack, of course it wouldn't apply if a weapon was being used.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

girlbug2 said:


> I am not now a good runner, nor have I ever been. That was a major motivation in my learning self defense to begin with. If my attacker is young and fit, that is all the more reason to make sure they're not getting up before I break away and run.


 
You make a valid point. I'm not a very good runner either, this might not be the best option for me either.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

MJS said:


> Some good points by people here. There are other phases to combat other than the physcal. Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.
> 
> What about the before phase? As I said, that is where the SD really begins. It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier. If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.
> 
> Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD. Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything. I'm more than happy with what I already train in. I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.


 
I appreciate your comments, far more than many of the others I read in this thread. This was starting to look more like a bullshido thread quite frankly. Perhaps the unkind words that "attack proof" folks have regarding traditional/classical systems would make them fair game, words I would not use. I have trained in classical/ traditional systems as well as more RBSD systems like "Attack proof" and have gotten something out of all of them. Than again, I never really advanced all that far in any of them, learning the basics of all, not really even intermediate, more of a dabbler, so what do I know? I threw the question out regarding their comment on close quarter or close combat self defense precisely because I know I really don't know anything compared to a lot of you. I wanted to weigh varying views and think it through myself. And I am certainly not going to allow myself to be in the position of defending "Attack proof" as I have never even taken one class in it. I have liked what I read in a book and watched on a video, others have not. I would like to take a class in it.

My next study will likely be tai chi, something that is incorporated in the "Attack proof" system. I think it will help me relax, which has always been my biggest problem learning the martial arts, I have an anxiety disorder which includes muscle tension, it is difficult to relax when your muscles are tense.

Again, thanks for your kind manner in your post.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.


 
Thanks for reading the book, that says something for you, that you were willing to read the book. No system is for everyone.


----------



## Joab (May 18, 2010)

tellner said:


> I knew there was a reason I didn't like guns. They aren't "close quarters" enough.
> 
> It's not Real Self Defense(tm) unless you're putting yourself in as much danger as possible.


 
I think their idea is it is a good idea to flee if the opportunity presents itself. Since the founder, John Perkins, was a New York City Police officer working a beat, and later a forensics detective, he would never advocate running from someone who is just going to shoot you in the back.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area.
> 
> Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.


 
Frankly, Joab, yes you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't have brought it here, and would have probably laughed it off the way others here (myself included) have. But to be more balanced, I went back to the site and went through pretty much everything there, including all the videos they have on there. And to say that this particular system would be below recommendation is an understatement.

I am never fond of anyone coming up with their own (Western) system and naming them in an Asian fashion, but when they can't even do that properly I have major concerns for the rest of the background and story presented. Here we have Ki Chuan Do, the Way of the Spirit Fist. Let's see... Ki (Japanese) Chuan (Chinese) Do (Japanese or Korean). And although that may be seen as nothing to do with the effectiveness of ineffectiveness of the system, it doesn't bode well for this being any more than someone's fantasy. And the rest of the videos pretty much confirmed that.

For a supposedly "reality" combat system (with techniques proven on the battlefield? Really? The second in command is supposedly an ex-Marine, I'd suggest he got into this system after he returned, but that's my assumption...) there is a great lack of realistic training. And that's supposed to be one of their big selling points.

Attacks are uncommited and not followed through. There is a highly unrealistic responce of rolling around on the ground, there is no-one on the entire series of videos who seem to have any understanding or ability to generate power, most techniques are rather ineffective as well as being overkill, and so on. Where your original post seems to be coming from is what they are refering to as their "Contact Flow" drill... which seems to be an unfocused form of Wing Chun's sticky hands drill. The clip to that is not particularly impressive.

I don't have the time to go through all of them, but I will provide a link for anyone wanting to make up their own minds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcBOoYWpB5E&feature=player_embedded

Now you're going to be taking Taiji because these guys include it in their system? No offense to Taiji (quite like the art myself), but how exactly do you see that helping you?

My honest advice to you is simple. Forget these supposed reality gurus, really anyone that tells you that they are the "only, most real, true" or some other such comment, all they are doing is trying to scare you into thinking they can help. Unsubscribe from their mailing list. Don't answer any more 1 page ads from "Military Special Forces Secret Teachers Showing You What The Military Doesn't Want You To Know!!!"

Then look around your area. Find a local school. Find a teacher you can respect. Doesn't matter what the system is, whether they claim to be "reality" or not, but make sure they are not preying on fear like these guys and your former teacher (this is the American Combato teacher again? For someone you apparently only trained with for a few months years ago, he certainly made an impression on you...). Then train. And train. And train some more. Get out of this scared mindset that leaves you open to these things. You really need to. Otherwise we'll be here discussing the same thing again.


----------



## repz (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


 
Makes sense to me too. Self Defense to me starts with running away. Its not hard to figure out something bad is going to happen, and I am not embrassed to say I ran, even if I was wrong that they were planning to jump me, or shoot me. I am not worried about losing face in an area I will never return to, or dont know anyone there. I ususally back away rasing my voice why are they trying to bring me over there when theres like five of them, that I am not stupid. If they get satisfaction for a few hours that they scared me away because they threatened to use metal against flesh and bone, or had to use more bodies to pose a threat, then good for them.

I am not such a believer in someone shooting you in the back. They would have shot you as you approached. Unless its gangster warfare or some other big grudge (which means you will probably get shot anyway), they are either trying to rob you, or trying to scare you away, to shot someone when he runs away trying not to get engaged in this case seems odd (though not impossible), unless they are crazy or confused you with someone. It would be best to run toward park cars and put objects in between, these idiots dont go to the range and are never usually trained. Several of my family members have died, and its because they didnt run away. My cousin almost had his arms chopped off because he wanted to square away with gang members who were holding machetes, considering its his neigborhood, he refused to run away and lose face.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.



Some US states have a 'duty to retreat' as part of their laws on self-defense.  Many have a 'stand your ground' clause instead.  State and local laws differ.  It is a good idea to know what the laws on self-defense are in your area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat



> Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack. The duty to retreat is not universal, however. For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty. Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984). The Model Penal Code § 3.04(2)(b)(ii) suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work.
> Many states employ "stand your ground" laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. Such as with the Washington State Supreme Court affirming state laws by ruling "_that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be._"[1][2]



Many will offer advice about what to do in order to avoid civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.  Many will puff up their chests and declare that they'll kill anyone who so much as steps into their path as they progress down the street.  None of them will pay your legal costs or serve your jail time (and neither will I), so my advice is to FIND OUT WHAT THE LAW IS where you live and then DO THAT.


----------



## MJS (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area.
> 
> Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.


 
I know you addressed this to Chris, and he's already answered the post, but I wanted to comment.  The part that caught my eye in this post, was when you spoke of the way the strikes are done.  Now, if we look at pretty much any style, theres a very good chance we'll see strikes that're similar.  The difference though, is usually in application.  We could most likely take any style, strip things down to the barebones basics and apply those punches and kicks in the same fashion that the above mentioned people (Fairbairn, Applegate) do.  



Joab said:


> I appreciate your comments, far more than many of the others I read in this thread. This was starting to look more like a bullshido thread quite frankly. Perhaps the unkind words that "attack proof" folks have regarding traditional/classical systems would make them fair game, words I would not use. I have trained in classical/ traditional systems as well as more RBSD systems like "Attack proof" and have gotten something out of all of them. Than again, I never really advanced all that far in any of them, learning the basics of all, not really even intermediate, more of a dabbler, so what do I know? I threw the question out regarding their comment on close quarter or close combat self defense precisely because I know I really don't know anything compared to a lot of you. I wanted to weigh varying views and think it through myself. And I am certainly not going to allow myself to be in the position of defending "Attack proof" as I have never even taken one class in it. I have liked what I read in a book and watched on a video, others have not. I would like to take a class in it.


 
I'm glad I could offer some assistance.   As for the wording that they use...like I said, they're marketing something.  Its no different than 2 fast food places would market their products.  How many times do we see 1 burger joint compare their burger to that of a competitor?  They make it sound like the other place stinks, the meat isn't nearly as good, its a plain Jane burger, compared to theirs.  Same thing with the martial arts IMO.  




> My next study will likely be tai chi, something that is incorporated in the "Attack proof" system. I think it will help me relax, which has always been my biggest problem learning the martial arts, I have an anxiety disorder which includes muscle tension, it is difficult to relax when your muscles are tense.


 
I know in past threads you were looking for advice on a place to train.  How has your search been going?  Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as there is no ill intent behind my words here.  I'm simply offering another observation.  IMHO, I think that you really like the martial arts.  You seem like you enjoy all of the benefits that the arts offer.  However, it seems to me that you're looking for the *1* art out there, that will address every single possible solution.  The 1 art that gives the appearance that it has a magical secret.  I wish I knew what that art was, because I'd be training in it.   Yes, there're arts, heck, pretty much every art addresses punching, kicking, grappling, weapons, etc., but, they don't have all the answers.

My advice would be this:  Set aside some quiet time, where you can sit down, and write out everything that you want out of the arts.  Once you have that list, seek out schools in your area or surrounding areas that either meet exactly what you're looking for, or those that come close.  This may require some travel, there may not be any schools in your area that meet your needs, I dont know, only you know that.  If it means going to 2 different schools, then so be it.  If it means driving 2 hrs. one way, then so be it.  If its something you want that bad, then go for it.   But its seems to me anyway, again, this is only an observation, that you dabble here, dabble there, get disheartened, dabble more, and so on.  Its a revolving door.  

As I said, the above is simply my advice.  You can take it, not take it, take part of it, whatever you'd like.  As I said, it seems to me that you enjoy training, but you're having a hard time finding things.  I wish you well in your search. 



> Again, thanks for your kind manner in your post.


 
You're welcome.


----------



## frank raud (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> I think their idea is it is a good idea to flee if the opportunity presents itself. Since the founder, John Perkins, was a New York City Police officer working a beat, and later a forensics detective, he would never advocate running from someone who is just going to shoot you in the back.


 
I would think John Perkins not advocating running might have something to do with his size.


----------



## frank raud (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> Thanks for reading the book, that says something for you, that you were willing to read the book. No system is for everyone.


 

I have read the book, seen a video and met John Perkins at a WWII combatives seminar in NJ. Not impressed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


 
How close do you have to be if they're shooting at you?  Range is kind of subjective.


----------



## Joab (May 19, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Frankly, Joab, yes you do.
> 
> Chris, you just called me a liar. In context, by writing the above you wrote that when I wrote wasn't impressed with their advertising I was in fact lying. There is no point in dialoguing with a self important, arrogant blowhard like you who would likely get his butt thoroughly kicked by any black belt in Attack proof! You sir, can go jump in the nearest lake.


----------



## Chris Parker (May 19, 2010)

Hmm. I could just RTM this post, which I probably should, or I can clarify. This will be a short reply.

No, I didn't actually call you a liar. I said that your actions go against your statements, which is calling you incongruent. That is a very common thing, though, as most people are unaware of what they are actually doing/saying/feeling/thinking on a real level at any point. It's the same as someone saying "Oh, I'd do this in this situation" and when it comes to it, they don't do anything of the kind. You said you didn't put any stock in these guys, but your actions and defence of them says you do. That's all. This emotional responce simply verifies it.

As to whether or not I would get my butt kicked, for one thing I doubt it, but for another that's kinda beside the point. We are discussing the ideas put forward by them (as presented first by yourself, then by the actual group when you supplied their website details). And you may have noticed that pretty much anyone here with any experience reacted the same way I did.

You seem to have had a problem with me since I tried to help you by pointing out a number of things in your posts and posting habits that you were most likely unaware of (again, this type of internal/external incongruency is rather common). I suggest you take a deep breath, relax, and try to read anything I post without that emotional filter you put on whenever you see my name.

And don't try such an outburst again, they're rather frowned upon here.


----------



## Joab (May 19, 2010)

MJS said:


> I know you addressed this to Chris, and he's already answered the post, but I wanted to comment. The part that caught my eye in this post, was when you spoke of the way the strikes are done. Now, if we look at pretty much any style, theres a very good chance we'll see strikes that're similar. The difference though, is usually in application. We could most likely take any style, strip things down to the barebones basics and apply those punches and kicks in the same fashion that the above mentioned people (Fairbairn, Applegate) do.
> 
> Actually, except for American Combato, the strikes have been radically different in all of the other styles I have studied (Tae-Kwon-Do, Wing Chun, Krav Maga. All those styles used clenched fist blows, I prefer open hand for the most part.
> 
> ...


 
Well, this will be my farewell post and I'm glad it is a positive one. There are many fine people in this forum, but I've been having problems with this site for sometime and this thread finally did it. I find the harsh words written about what I consider to be an outstanding system, "Attack proof" less than friendly. I don't like being called a liar, and Chris Parker called me one in different words. Essentially what I view to be good and what many here consider to be good are too far apart at this time. It's time to leave, I've written Bob to make it official. Thanks MJS, you've been one of the good guys-Joab


----------



## Grenadier (May 19, 2010)

_ATTENTION ALL USERS:_

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

- Ronald Shin
- MT Supermoderator


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 19, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


Controling or neutralizing the situation with the environment is self defense.
Sean


----------



## MJS (May 19, 2010)

Well, looks like I missed a bit of excitement today. LOL.  Seriously though, this thread is probably dead...maybe not though.

Anyways...this thread, and many like it, go to show the differences of opinion in what everyone thinks of a particular art.  I, as well as many others here, have given some solid advice.  Whether or not the person asking decides to take that or not, well, is up to them.  The website was posted, a video clip was posted, I believe by Chris.  Chris was right...the majority here all said the same thing.  The OP opted not to take that advice, feeling that the AP system is good.  Hey, like I said in my last post...I too gave advice.  I wish the OP well in his search.


----------



## Explorer (May 21, 2010)

Joab said:


> This presupposes that the attack is hand to hand, unarmed attack, of course it wouldn't apply if a weapon was being used.



Hi Joab,

You are assuming facts not in evidence in the original post. Therefore this response is a non sequitur. Further, if the training only applies to unarmed attack it is useless in the case of armed assault which comprises a significant portion of self defense situations.

If the original content contained information that said they were only concerned about hand to hand, then you had a duty to report it accurately. If not, refer to the last half of the previous paragraph.


----------



## Avenger2616 (Jun 7, 2010)

One of the first "Reality Based" SD books I ever picked up was the one for this system...  After reading it I felt two things 1) if I ever used ANY of the nonsense in the book I'd end up dead, beaten to a pulp or in jail for aggravated assault and or murder and 2) really stupid for having plunked down my money for something so useless as this.
The author actually advocated flat out tearing someone to shreds if they attack you, eye gouging as a first step.  "You didn't ask to be assaulted, so he volunteered for the serious injuries he's going to get" type BS.  As far as I recall, there was no mention of getting away before the bad guy was a quivering puddle on the floor.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 8, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


Good question.  

Kind of depends on how you are defining close quarters and how you define self defense.  Justifiable is also open to interpretation.  There is also the whole scenario of defense of another (friends, family, victim of beating in progress) which has its own set of issues.

In a court of law, the prosecution and the defense will do their best to either prove or disprove self defense, and it is not always the most factual side that wins, not to mention that laws vary enough from state to state that making a blanket statement is risky.

I will agree that seeking avenues of escape should be a first priority, and not for legal reasons.  Chances are that an assailant has an advantage over you if he or she is pressing an attack.  They probably wouldn't be doing so otherwise, so escape is generally your best option.  

The nature of that advantage can be anything from a physical advantage (larger, stronger, faster, etc.), a damage multiplier (i.e. a weapon), a range advantage (projectile weapon, most likely a firearm, though I suppose a crossbow bandit is not out of the question), a surprise advantage (the attacker was laying in wait), a terrain advantage, or strength in numbers (i.e. friends).  Or several at once (i.e. larger, stronger guys with guns and knives).

Given the variety of situations that one can find themselves in, I think the school's letter is a bit inaccurate, but without actually having seen the statement in context, I won't draw any conclusions.

Personally, I feel that the defense of one's self goes far beyond the physical altercation and begins with one's own habits and behavioral patterns.  Often, those who seek to do us harm take advantage or have access to us as a result of our habits and behavioral patterns in order to do so.  

There is no alertness/prevention skill or skill set that will guarantee that a violent encounter will not befall us.  But we can minimize the chances of a violent encounter before hand by exercising a modicum of common sense. 

I did not read this thread in its entirety, so it is possible that parts of my post have already been addressed.

Daniel


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 8, 2010)

Joab said:


> So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)
> 
> This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.


 
Depends on several things:

A) can the still reach you with whatever they have as a weapon. Gun? Knife? Club? Chain?

B) Can they outrun you? And thus they can still reach you.

C) If other potential victems are there, are they still in danger? Can they run?

And just as important, in places like Texas, with Stand-Your-Ground laws, the person who is there legaly, and did not start any argument, *DOES NOT HAVE TO RUN*. And it is still considered self defense as they were there legaly and it is the attacker that just yield.

So you see, 'justifiable self defense', means different things in different places.

Deaf


----------



## Chris Parker (Jun 9, 2010)

Hmm. While I certainly appreciate your input guys, it may have paid to read through the thread first.... it's only 2 and a half pages, after all.

Daniel, the context (and source) is well discussed, including a link to their website to make up your own mind.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. While I certainly appreciate your input guys, it may have paid to read through the thread first.... it's only 2 and a half pages, after all.


Glad I posted before reading it.  My answer would have essentially remained the same, minus the mention of weapons.  



Chris Parker said:


> Daniel, the context (and source) is well discussed, including a link to their website to make up your own mind.


I looked at it after posting.  Still would not have changed my response to the OP.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jun 11, 2010)

Joab said:


> This is a very brief quote, if you would like to explore the system more thoroughly please go to www.attackproof.com


The attackproof site reminded me of this: http://www.theselfdefenseco.com/about_self_defense.asp?gclid=CLyF4LS2mKICFRBx5QodPiLDXQ

This is one of the ads that flashes at the top of MT, for what its worth.

Daniel


----------



## TigerCraneGuy (Jul 11, 2010)

Avenger2616 said:


> One of the first "Reality Based" SD books I ever picked up was the one for this system... After reading it I felt two things 1) if I ever used ANY of the nonsense in the book I'd end up dead, beaten to a pulp or in jail for aggravated assault and or murder and 2) really stupid for having plunked down my money for something so useless as this.
> The author actually advocated flat out tearing someone to shreds if they attack you, eye gouging as a first step. "You didn't ask to be assaulted, so he volunteered for the serious injuries he's going to get" type BS. As far as I recall, there was no mention of getting away before the bad guy was a quivering puddle on the floor.


 
1) Bought and read it too;

2) Have since purchased superior material on WWII type combatives (re Kelly McCaan);

3) Have since started training in Kenpo again backed up by stealing ideas from Combatives and Southnarc's Managing Unknown Contact methodology; and therefore

4) Completely agree with you, and am NO longer interested in AP, mate!

Have a good one


----------



## myusername (Jul 12, 2010)

I agree with what others have said so far about how limiting the original statement is.

As for the premise that as soon as they move out of range it is no  longer self defence. What nonsense. On top of what others have said  about loved ones, weapons etc etc this totally ignores "multiples." If  you have more than one attacker it may be perfectly acceptable and still  self defence to target one attacker and actually close space yourself  and move into range to do so.

Also, on top of what others have said I feel that it completely ignores some of the skills of "posturing" which I feel is a very important self defence tool. There are certain situations (I was unfortunately in one last week!) where your attacker has doubts over whether he can handle you after he has initiated a conflict. The attacker may posture and threaten you just out of range trying to make himself feel bigger and psyching himself up to actually physically attack you. Posturing for self defence purposes means basically being scarier than your attacker to make the most of their doubts. You have to assert yourself in that situation as if you demonstrate weakness by turning tail and trying to flee or acting passively this will remove your attackers doubts and they will move in for the kill. Running or acting passively can be dangerous and like a red rag to a bull.

My personal view on posturing is that it is only to be used when you sense your attacker/ or attackers are having doubts over whether they are strong enough to beat you. Be prepared to move to the physical though as it can backfire. Pretending to be passive (and by this I don't mean running) is appropriate if the person appears to be intent on attacking you and is closing space. Put your hands up in a shield/fence and tell them you don't want trouble. Whilst they are mentally congratulating themselves bang them on the chin!

I would say only run if you feel it is safe to do so and often it isn't until the threat has been neutralised.


----------

