masterfinger said:
Tulisan,
Really? A pre-emptive strike is not self defense?? So you're saying I should've jumped out in front of the intruder, who has broken into my home with a weapon in hand and presented myself as a target, then allow him to attack me first so I can use a "self defense" technique against his attack? I don't understand. You already said it may be a justifiable pre-emptive strike against an attacker( which in my state it is 100%justifiable according to the local PD ) So you're saying pre-emptive strikes are not part of "self defense" huh. Which is it?
Self-Defense? Not in this case. Self-Defense would be going to your neighbors house and calling the police. Third party defense? O.K., maybe. But that maybe factor does not give one the right to teach something in an unrealistic manner. But third party defense is not what you said. I don't mean to play semantics, but there is an important difference.
A sentry removal is not just your average "pre-emptive strike," meaning you hit him first because you know an attack is imminent. Your average pre-emptive strike is a viable self-defense tactic. A sentry removal technique is an highly offensive maneuver. It takes an overcoming of a host of psychological aversians that is not taught and cannot be taught in most martial arts classes. The military does the best job in the world of training people to overcome the aversian to killing, yet even your average infantryman has a good percentage of failure when trying to kill with anything without his rifle. Your average infantryman has a certian personality/mental make-up to be infantry in the first place, and has had adequate training to help with overcoming the psychological aversian to killing, yet they still have a substantial percentage of failure when it comes to killing without the use of the rifle.
Sentry Removal is as close to your victim as you can get. The majority of your civilians will not be able to effectively pull off such a technique in a real life scenario. They don't have the psychological make up, nor the adequate training to pull this off; thus they won't be effective with this even if they, their wife, and their children are in danger. Depending on the circumstance, they may get themselves and their family killed death could have been avoided.
Then there is the other issues of deterring threats that should be sought out first. Having adequate locks on your doors, having adequatly secured windows, having an adequate alarm system, having a home safety plan so you and your family can escape in case of an emergency or a safe room or area to hide in are all things that will deter a "sentry removal" technique from having to be deployed. And, you should have a firearm to defend your home. Why would you have it locked in a locker in the basement when you sleep on the second floor, for example? You should have a firearm nearby where you sleep that you can access in under 30 seconds or so when that alarm in your house goes off. Your wife should be trained to do the same.
I could keep listing and listing and listing things, but if your looking for a reason to justify a moviesque sentry removal as a self-defense technique on a fictitious assassin armed with a carbine and a laser scope wearing a flak jacket and fatigues, then all of these very viable self-defense tactics that require simple adjustments rather then "expert" martial arts training will seem unreasonable.
What I am saying is that for teaching a civilian self-defense (not a martial art), particularly in a self-defense workshop or class, one needs to be covering having a self-defense mindset, and one needs to be covering tactics that will negate the need for the use of force. And when one does cover use of force, one should focus on simple techniques and tactics that will work for most people in multiple situations, regardless of size and experience.
Sentry removal techniques don't fit the above criteria.
Now, a sentry removal technique MAY in an off the wall circumstance be usable for third party defense. However, this will most likely only work for either those highly trained to overcome their psychological safeties, or for the completely psychopathic. The reason has nothing to do with the difficulty of the technique, but has everything to do with the psychological aspects of killing with a knife while body to body with the intruder and at the closest range.
"Basically its these "what if 27 ninja's armed with uzi's corner me on a rooftop" type of situations. "
Can you please explain to me how this compares to the scenario of a single armed intruder breaking into your home?
Gladly, because the concept is very simple.
If one takes all the proper measures to defend ones home, then this makes the probability of having to "sentry remove" the attacker close to nil. Even if one doesn't take the appropriate measures, the probabilities are still very low to begin with. Do some research for yourself if you doubt me. You will be hard pressed to find ONE case where a sentry removal tactic was used for someone to defend their family, and where it was a viable third party defense tactic, let alone many cases to consider this tactic usable in a probable situation.
So what I'm guessing in that reply is that you really don't know how teach that to civillians.
No... my reply is there for you to read, though, plain as the English language. What I AM guessing that you should stick to the topic we are discussing, which is whether or not a sentry removal tactic is viable to teach for self-defense, instead of sniping me and personally attacking the way in which I teach civilians, which is something you know little about.
Conclusion: What is supposedly justifiable by law and how things go down in the courtroom are two completely different things. What is a viable technique in the dojo and what is a viable technique for self-defense can be two different things. What is viable for self-defense training and what is viable for a martial art training is often two different things.
I argue that a sentry removal technique is not really a viable technique for self-defense training at all because 1. it is improbable that a situation would occur in which one would need such a tactic, 2. having a self-defense oriented mindset and lifestyle will further prevent the already improbable, and 3. most civilians will not be able to deploy such a technique if taught anyhow.
Now, for the right person in a very specific scenario (that you would be hard pressed to find an example on), a sentry removal may be viable for third party defense. Again, that is the right person with the right training and in a very specified scenario. This is not your average person who takes up a self-defense class, nor is this scenario your average situation. However, because this may in some off-the-wall circumstance be a viable technique for a civilian, this does not give one the right to skip over the other important aspects of self-defense and the other more viable tactics so one can engage in the fantasy assasin crap (because its so coooool and impressive ya know) while toting fantasy assassin crap up as great self-defense stuff.
Now, I don't know what you teach or how you teach so I am not beiing critical of what you personally. I am not even saying "don't teach this." I am saying that you owe it to yourself and your students to be realistic about what you are teaching, and that I hope that you are doing this.
Paul
