Anecdotal vs. empirical

[Gerry Seymour]

To the OP, the issue with finding more than general empirical evidence, such as the psychological dynamics of the offender and victim, the pre-attack cues, general tactics of a street robbery etc. is because there are simply way to many variables to consider in terms of the attack itself. Environment, training, health, age, even the clothing worn by attacker and defender matter. Now would it be possible to comb through a butt ton of police reports of a specific "typical" city and look at all of that but there are two problems with that. First, it would cost money and the chances of getting a grant to pay for skilled researchers to study "the efficacy of martial arts based self defense training in street attacks" is slim to none. Second I don't know of any officer who actually asked a person who was a victim "do you have self-defense, martial arts training" so it likely wouldn't be in a report unless the victim volunteered the information.

And then we add in all the variables around that MA training: focus, calendar time, average time per week, intensity, age started, experience of the instructor, etc. Given the number of assaults/attempted assaults that occur (and ignoring how many of them never involve a police officer, at all), there simply wouldn't be a large enough "population" in the study to control all those variables. It would have to come down to something very simple - has training (more than 6 months) or not.

 

[jobo]

That last part is the point Steve was making earlier.

there,are reasonable conclusion to be made

if I spend 10years learning surgery, then successfully remove an,appendix, then its impossible to know that I couldn't have,done that with no training at all, but a reasonable conclusion is the training helped a great deal.

we can apply the,same conclusion to a physical encounter where the winner had spent time training to win a physical encounter, .

 

[Gerry Seymour]

there,are reasonable conclusion to be made

if I spend 10years learning surgery, then successfully remove an,appendix, then its impossible to know that I couldn't have,done that with no training at all, but a reasonable conclusion is the training helped a great deal.

we can apply the,same conclusion to a physical encounter where the winner had spent time training to win a physical encounter, .

You're missing my point. Using your appendix example, we can reasonably conclude that the training made you capable of safely removing that appendix. We cannot (with just that information) conclude that the training saved the person's life. We'd need (and have, in that area) a lot more information about what happens if the appendix isn't removed, things are cut improperly, etc. With a mugging, there are a lot more variables. There are untrained people who fight off muggers, so we can't say with any certainty (from a scientific viewpoint) that your training is why you beat the mugger, even though we know it's what you used. We just don't know if it was necessary.

This, of course, doesn't invalidate the training, but it is something we have to keep in mind when reviewing anecdotal evidence. I know people who say their ability to take falls has saved them from broken bones when they slipped and fell on ice. It's possible, but unlikely in a global sense. I've fallen many times on ice in my lifetime, and never even come close to breaking a bone, as have many untrained people. Now, in some specific situations it may be logically clear that the fall they took was particularly dangerous and prone to breaking bones. The same may be true of an individual incident of dealing with a mugger - perhaps with yours. The subject may have had very good cues that the mugger was going to get violent, and when fighting them off, could tell they had fighting skills. Logically, they can reasonably conclude their training was key.

 

[jobo]

You're missing my point. Using your appendix example, we can reasonably conclude that the training made you capable of safely removing that appendix. We cannot (with just that information) conclude that the training saved the person's life. We'd need (and have, in that area) a lot more information about what happens if the appendix isn't removed, things are cut improperly, etc. With a mugging, there are a lot more variables. There are untrained people who fight off muggers, so we can't say with any certainty (from a scientific viewpoint) that your training is why you beat the mugger, even though we know it's what you used. We just don't know if it was necessary.

This, of course, doesn't invalidate the training, but it is something we have to keep in mind when reviewing anecdotal evidence. I know people who say their ability to take falls has saved them from broken bones when they slipped and fell on ice. It's possible, but unlikely in a global sense. I've fallen many times on ice in my lifetime, and never even come close to breaking a bone, as have many untrained people. Now, in some specific situations it may be logically clear that the fall they took was particularly dangerous and prone to breaking bones. The same may be true of an individual incident of dealing with a mugger - perhaps with yours. The subject may have had very good cues that the mugger was going to get violent, and when fighting them off, could tell they had fighting skills. Logically, they can reasonably conclude their training was key.

there are untrained people that remove organs, ?

it is clearly quite a logical conclusion that working on my kick made the kick more powerful and that this extra power was a deciding factor , in the mugged falling over. I can't know that the mugged wouldn't get a migraine and just go home.
your getting a bit silly with this

 

[Paul_D]

People fighting, which isn't self defense. Right?

No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?

Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.

Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they? So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.

Can you do that for me, smart ****?

No you cant, because they aren't the same clever ****. Go **** yourself. I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT.

Goodbye.

 

[Paul_D]

.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

there are untrained people that remove organs, ?

I said nothing about untrained people removing appendices. Actually, that was in your post.

it is clearly quite a logical conclusion that working on my kick made the kick more powerful and that this extra power was a deciding factor , in the mugged falling over. I can't know that the mugged wouldn't get a migraine and just go home.
your getting a bit silly with this

Yes. And I said that before. But that's looking at the "what made him fall over", not "did the training make a difference in the outcome". If you could have fought him off without the training (so, without that trained kick), then the training didn't materially change the outcome for you. And if he would have walked away (with or without your wallet) and left you unharmed, some would argue that the physical training wasn't necessary. We cannot draw conclusions of that nature from any individual incident, because there are always examples that show the contrary (skill failing, untrained people resisting successfully, and resistance not being necessary).

There's a difference between something being effective from a technical standpoint (your kick was apparently and demonstrably effective in that incident) and it changing the outcome (because we can't know what the outcome would have been without it). It might have saved your life, or it might have produced the same outcome you'd have gotten with a solid push.

 

[jobo]

I said nothing about untrained people removing appendices. Actually, that was in your post.



Yes. And I said that before. But that's looking at the "what made him fall over", not "did the training make a difference in the outcome". If you could have fought him off without the training (so, without that trained kick), then the training didn't materially change the outcome for you. And if he would have walked away (with or without your wallet) and left you unharmed, some would argue that the physical training wasn't necessary. We cannot draw conclusions of that nature from any individual incident, because there are always examples that show the contrary (skill failing, untrained people resisting successfully, and resistance not being necessary).

There's a difference between something being effective from a technical standpoint (your kick was apparently and demonstrably effective in that incident) and it changing the outcome (because we can't know what the outcome would have been without it). It might have saved your life, or it might have produced the same outcome you'd have gotten with a solid push.

no the out come was the guy on the floor, so yes the kick is directly linked to the outcome

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No, SD is legal. it is not "Legally breaking the law"

SD is exactly what you do in the moment, if someone cannot be deescalated verbally, and you cannot escape, you strike preemptively. How you word your statement to the police will effect how the case is handled yes, but giving a statement to the police isn't the act of SD.

I think a lot of confusion happens around the difference between the act of self-defense and the legal defense, "self-defense". They are two separate things, but the common terminology confuses the point.

When one is attacked and fights back, one is defending oneself. Hence, it is self-defense.

When questioned by the police or responding to a charge from the incident, one is making a claim of self-defense - the legal defense to the charge.

(I'm not a lawyer or cop, so I've probably misused or even abused some terms in this post.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no the out come was the guy on the floor, so yes the kick is directly linked to the outcome

That's his outcome, not yours. You're still focused on that side of it. And we still don't know if a solid (untrained) push would have gotten both of you the same outcome.

 

[jobo]

That's his outcome, not yours. You're still focused on that side of it. And we still don't know if a solid (untrained) push would have gotten both of you the same outcome.

no that's the outcome of MY kick, that's my outcome

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no that's the outcome of MY kick, that's my outcome

So, you don't care if you go home or not, just whether he does?

 

[Steve]

No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?

Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.

Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they? So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.

Can you do that for me, smart ****?

No you cant, because they aren't the same clever ****. Go **** yourself. I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT.

Goodbye.

Quite a temper tantrum. I understand your position, but I'm pretty sure you've never taken the time to understand mine. Once you have, Ill gladly accept your apology.

 

[Martial D]

No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?

Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.

Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they? So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.

Can you do that for me, smart ****?

No you cant, because they aren't the same clever ****. Go **** yourself. I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT.

Goodbye.

Rage much?

Think of it this way;if SD is a tool belt, fighting is the hammer. You won't always need your hammer for every task, but you wouldn't want to be without one on a job site.

Is fighting self defense? Sometimes. Is running self defense? Sometimes. How about talking people down? Yup, that too.

You walk around a corner and see two people throwing hands. Are you witnessing a fight or self defense? Certainly the prior, but maybe the latter too.

 

[Steve]

Okay. Serious answer now.

No, SD and fighting are the same apparently, so perhaps you can explain how the SD skills Threat Awareness & Evaluation, verbal de-escalation and The Fence are fighting skills?

It depends on your definition of Self Defense. I do think these skills are contextual. They are also helpful for some people and likely not all that helpful to others, particularly for those people who will not have opportunity to really develop skill beyond training.

Or how a mugger holding a knife in your face, or a wife being strangled by her abusive husband, or a woman who has been dragged into an alley by her hair by a sexual predator isn't self defence anymore, because it's not a consensual fight, and only consensual fighting is SD.

Depends on your definition of Self Defense. I, personally, would agree that these are all self defense situations. However, I have been saying consistently that they are all very different, and there is very little overlap between these situations. Self defense training needs for a wife in an abusive relationship is going to be profoundly different than for a guy walking around in bad parts of town, or a woman who is being dragged into an alley by her hair.

My point earlier in this thread, which I really don't think you have taken the time to read, is that self defense training can be very effective, if it is specific and well designed. In other words, a self defense class designed for cops isn't going to be very useful for a line cook or a web designer. But if time is taken to design a program based on a specific, identified need, it can be very helpful. And if done with a control group, along with reliable data and measurable outcomes, it can be improved over time to become more helpful.

And, based on what I've seen, I think the physical training, whether it's Ameri-to-de or BJJ or MMA or whatever it is that you do, is the least important component. There is as much evidence that Parkour or Tae Bo are as helpful as MMA.

Or explain how it is only SD if there are only two on you, and no weapons, and you are stood five feet apart throwing exploratory jabs to test weakness in your opponents response that could be exploited later in the fight, because consensual fighting and SD from non consensual criminal violence are the something aren't they? So if it's not one, it can't be the other because they are the same.

This is like your fantasy. In years on this forum, the only person I can recall who says this is you.

Can you do that for me, smart ****?

Well, I did my best.

No you cant,

Doh!

because they aren't the same clever ****.

Well, okay.

Go **** yourself.

Ummm...

I'm sick of you and all the other lovely idiots on this board, and I'm done with MT

Goodbye.

Well, alrighty then. If you do happen to get this far, I will only point out one thing which might help, and this is just speaking for myself. I think I have consistently agreed, for the most part, with your definition of self defense. When I post comments like the one that apparently provoked this temper tantrum, it's not because I disagree with you. It's because you are saying something I believe is obvious to everyone on this forum, but you say it like it's some pearl of wisdom only you truly understand.

It's not that people don't understand your definition. They just don't agree with it entirely. You have created a false dichotomy where two people fighting is never self defense. And that's fine if it's your definition. However, most people think all of the things you state above are SD, AND ALSO have a less exclusive definition that covers some things you insist are not SD. For example, some of the lovely idiots around here would agree that if you get into a consensual fight outside a bar, it's not self defense. They might, however, say that when that other person pulls out a knife, it is now a self defense situation. Other people would include the entire fight as a self defense situation.

 

[Steve]

No, SD is legal. it is not "Legally breaking the law"

SD is exactly what you do in the moment, if someone cannot be deescalated verbally, and you cannot escape, you strike preemptively. How you word your statement to the police will effect how the case is handled yes, but giving a statement to the police isn't the act of SD.

Not the only definition used frequently on this forum.

Self defense is a legal justification for an action that would otherwise be illegal. And you put "legally breaking the law" in quotes, but I'm not sure whom you're quoting. I'm pretty sure I didn't write that.

When you kill a person, you have killed a person. Your legal justification for doing so will determine whether it was self defense or murder. If the judge believes your justification for your action, you haven't broken the law at all. That doesn't mean you haven't killed someone. And because the judge believed you (I say "Judge" as a shorthand for the entire legal process, FYI), you will not be accountable for the act of killing a person for the rest of your life.

It's like having sex. Taking the morning after pill doesn't mean you didn't have sex. You had sex. Nothing will change that. You are just not going to be accountable for it for the rest of your life.

 

[Jenna]

When you kill a person, you have killed a person. Your legal justification for doing so will determine whether it was self defense or murder. If the judge believes your justification for your action, you haven't broken the law at all. That doesn't mean you haven't killed someone. And because the judge believed you (I say "Judge" as a shorthand for the entire legal process, FYI), you will not be accountable for the act of killing a person for the rest of your life.

That is a good point and too often I think given no airspace thank you for mentioning! Yes dealing emotionally with seriously harming another person is in my experience as difficult as dealing emotionally with being seriously harmed by another person.. Taking a life is understood by most and but emotional dysfunction can also occur after what are ostensibly much lower level of physical harm.. I think it is often unspoken or seem to me some time like spoiling the fun of online fantasy fighting talk maybe??

It's like having sex. Taking the morning after pill doesn't mean you didn't have sex. You had sex. Nothing will change that. You are just not going to be accountable for it for the rest of your life.

Did you notice any effects of taking morning after pill?? I would worry it would seriously mess with ya manly mojo j/k actually back in the day morning after contraception precipitate depression too which never make the emotional job of having to take one easier.. so.. is maybe akin to your point about the "Judge" ruling on the act you depict.. emergency contraception is like the "Judge" and possibly for the best to plan ahead to avoid need for judicial interventions in first place.. #besafe

 

[Steve]

That is a good point and too often I think given no airspace thank you for mentioning! Yes dealing emotionally with seriously harming another person is in my experience as difficult as dealing emotionally with being seriously harmed by another person.. Taking a life is understood by most and but emotional dysfunction can also occur after what are ostensibly much lower level of physical harm.. I think it is often unspoken or seem to me some time like spoiling the fun of online fantasy fighting talk maybe??


Did you notice any effects of taking morning after pill?? I would worry it would seriously mess with ya manly mojo j/k actually back in the day morning after contraception precipitate depression too which never make the emotional job of having to take one easier.. so.. is maybe akin to your point about the "Judge" ruling on the act you depict.. emergency contraception is like the "Judge" and possibly for the best to plan ahead to avoid need for judicial interventions in first place.. #besafe

Yes. In both situations, as you note, there are other possible repercussions. You might not go to jail, which is a huge concern. But there can be lasting effects from having been involved in any kind of altercation, particularly if you have had to take someone's life in self defense.

Similarly, emergency contraception might manage any unplanned pregnancy, but it won't help you with other potential ramifications of your actions, from potential STDs to any emotional fallout caused by your actions.

George Zimmerman is the unfortunate poster child for what can happen, even when you've been legally cleared. Whether he was justified or not, he was found legally innocent of the charges, and yet his life is pretty much wrecked anyway.

Thanks, Jenna!

 

[jobo]

So, you don't care if you go home or not, just whether he does?

not relevant, if I kick a ball a ball into a goal its a goal,that has no bearing on if either I or the goal keeper go home later

 

[Steve]

not relevant, if I kick a ball a ball into a goal its a goal,that has no bearing on if either I or the goal keeper go home later

It is relevant if the ball has poison spikes on it, and you kicked it at the goalie with the intent to kill or maim him.