Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[Steve]

Jenna

Just to add something, actually restate it because it has already been said.

The attackers intent is to kill the victims intent is to survive. Now the intent to survive may be a primal instinct but the attacker intent to kill likely is not, that was a choice.

Now one can choose not to survive, not what I would recommend, but they can choose that and thereby disrupting that "primal instinct".... but to what end with the overall picture of humanity.....

Is the attacker's intent necessarily to kill the victim? I challenge that presumption. Can be, for sure, but how did we go from discussing self defense to discussing what is surely a small subset of self defense, which is defense against a homocidal lunatic?

 

[Steve]

12 hours (not weeks, as the thread title suggests) broken out over 3 days of 4 hours each. A grand totla of 2 hours is spent on physical skills. That's about 8% of the time, with 92% spent on all of the things. That makes way more sense to me. Hopefully, it helps explain my earlier comments, which i don't think I was making veyr clear.

Too late to edit this, but my public school math let me down. Two out of 12 hours is actually closer to 16% than 8%. I'm math challenged.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Is the attacker's intent necessarily to kill the victim? I challenge that presumption. Can be, for sure, but how did we go from discussing self defense to discussing what is surely a small subset of self defense, which is defense against a homocidal lunatic?

Listen Mr. logic, I have had about enough or your reasoning

There was no presumption, it was a bad generalization...the attacker chooses to attack the attacked responds, there is little or no choice at that moment, it is a fight or flight reflex. Also it then falls to the perception of the attacked, who had no choice in the matter. At that point you are dealing with a reflex and the intent of the attacker is not the issue it is the perception of the attacked. And you are still at the attacker chose to attack regardless of intent.

 

[elder999]

Well, I hear what you're saying, elder999. But i'm not sure I understand. If bad guy #1 is helpless, but he has a buddy, it's okay to kill him. I'll have to mull that over for a while. Doesn't compute right now.

A stomp on the head from me might kill him.

I don't care- he won't be getting up, and I've got to deal with his buddy(s) still..

 

[Steve]

Listen Mr. logic, I have had about enough or your reasoning

There was no presumption, it was a bad generalization...the attacker chooses to attack the attacked responds, there is little or no choice at that moment, it is a fight or flight reflex. Also it then falls to the perception of the attacked, who had no choice in the matter. At that point you are dealing with a reflex and the intent of the attacker is not the issue it is the perception of the attacked. And you are still at the attacker chose to attack regardless of intent.

I understand and apologize if it seemed that I was nitpicking. Honestly, where I'm at right now is just having read through the sexual assault study posted in the other thread, and then going through the resources to read those articles (well, at least the ones that are free). In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.

 

[elder999]

I. In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.

However (getting back to the whole women's thing, that I'm still wrestling with expressing in this format) I teach women that sexual assault is a lethal threat, and should be treated as such.

 

[Steve]

However (getting back to the whole women's thing, that I'm still wrestling with expressing in this format) I teach women that sexual assault is a lethal threat, and should be treated as such.

Is that realistic? I don't think that data supports this. I'd like to see more.

in contrast, the study mentioned above and in the other thread used the following criteria. While damaging and very concerning, I do not get the impressino at all that the attacks were intended to be a lethal threat.

All experiences reported during 12 months of follow-up were classified into one of five sexual victimization categories: completed rape, attempted rape, coercion, attempted coercion, or nonconsensual sexual contact. The primary outcome was completed rape; other outcomes were prespecified as tertiary. (Secondary outcomes were psychological variables that were expected to mediate the effects of the intervention and are not included here.) Completed rape (oral, vaginal, or anal penetration) and nonconsensual sexual contact (nonpenetrative) were defined as nonconsensual sexual acts in which the perpetrator used threats, force, or drug or alcohol incapacitation. Coercion was considered to have occurred when perpetrators used pressure or manipulation (e.g., “threatening to end the relationship” or “continually verbally pressuring me”) to induce compliance in nonconsensual penetrative sexual acts. Attempted rape and attempted coercion were occasions in which the perpetrator tried to engage in the behavior but was not successful. For completed and attempted rapes, participants recorded the dates of occurrence.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I understand and apologize if it seemed that I was nitpicking. Honestly, where I'm at right now is just having read through the sexual assault study posted in the other thread, and then going through the resources to read those articles (well, at least the ones that are free). In those situations, it's not usually a serial killer scenario.

No need for apology, I was the one that made the bad generalization.

 

[elder999]

Is that realistic? I don't think that data supports this. I'd like to see more.

in contrast, the study mentioned above and in the other thread used the following criteria. While damaging and very concerning, I do not get the impressino at all that the attacks were intended to be a lethal threat.

How is a woman-even one with training-how is anyone capable of assessing "intent" with any accuracy?

How is anyone? In my case, I thought the intent was simply to rob me, and I handed over my goods. I was wrong, and, luckily, equipped to respond to the real threat and intention appropriately.

I didn't say that "all rapists's intent is murder." I said that sexual assault is to be treated as a lethal threat, and it should be.It's game theory, @Steve : reply to the threat with an appropriate level of response, in this case, lethally or by response and removal from the situation-no one is going to question it on legal or moral grounds.Understand, I'm not talking about simple groping or inappropriate touching-I'm talking about a physical attempt to forcibly penetrate a female, in one way or another-that's a lethal threat, and should be responded to as such.

In my "home invasion" scenario, it could as easily be teens, or some homeless person looking to get warm (I actually had this person knock on my door, in the middle of nowhere where my home was at the time, and I gave them a coat), or a drunk, or a relative, or simply someone who wants to steal some stuff. Those are all circumstances and intentions that, with the exception of "relative"-that is, someone who isn't breaking in but belongs there-I'm going to address the same way: they're there to commit mayhem, and I'm gonna shoot them. I'll worry about their "intentions" when I try to go to sleep the night after I've shot them.

In most situations, the only thing the intended target of violence can assess is the threat, not the intention.

 

[Steve]

How is a woman-even one with training-how is anyone capable of assessing "intent" with any accuracy?

How is anyone? In my case, I thought the intent was simply to rob me, and I handed over my goods. I was wrong, and, luckily, equipped to respond to the real threat and intention appropriately.

I didn't say that "all rapists's intent is murder." I said that sexual assault is to be treated as a lethal threat, and it should be.It's game theory, @Steve : reply to the threat with an appropriate level of response, in this case, lethally or by response and removal from the situation-no one is going to question it on legal or moral grounds.Understand, I'm not talking about simple groping or inappropriate touching-I'm talking about a physical attempt to forcibly penetrate a female, in one way or another-that's a lethal threat, and should be responded to as such.

In most situations, the only thing the intended target of violence can assess is the threat, not the intention.

I don't know that data bears this out, Elder. While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat. I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.

Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat. But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal. That's just not the end game for the bad guys. The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim. And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening.

And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic. The actual threat is rape. How can a female defend herself from that? Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I'd be interested in hearing a scenario where stomping on someone's head would be self defense. I can't think of one. But many people learn that technique in self defense class.

When that person has a knife or club, and there's at least one other assailant-stomping on their head is neutralizing a lethal threat. Discussions afterward are for lawyers to have with the defender.....of course, the defender has to be alive to have that discussion.

I was actually teaching knife defences to some black belts a few hours ago and touched upon this very subject. I mentioned that for a head stomp you don't necessarily have to stomp your foot through someone's head with all your power and crush it like an egg for it to be a head stomp I have seen knife defense videos on YouTube where the defender has disabled the attacker and has him on the floor and then stripped the knife and proceeded to cut both femoral and brachial arteries, neck and throat. Basically how to go from self defense to murder in one easy lesson.

 

[elder999]

I don't know that data bears this out, Elder. While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat. I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.

You need to read what I said again.

Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat.

You need to read what I said again.

But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal. That's just not the end game for the bad guys. The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim. And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening.

You need to read what I said again.

And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic. The actual threat is rape. How can a female defend herself from that? Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.

You need to read what I said again.

 

[Steve]

Lol. That's the old stand by around here. "You don't agree with me because you don't understand me."

How many different definitions does 'lethal' have?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

L
How many different definitions does 'lethal' have?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dunno, but in my dojo, attempting to forcibly sexually penetrate a female is one of them.

 

[pgsmith]

The point was, that if she was a martial arts student (depending on the style of course), she wouldn't have just laid there and taken that beating.

Absolutely clueless!

I will put this in first person for fear it sound like I am directing it any where in particular..

I am attacked and I fight back, and either by intention or by accident I maim or kill my attacker.. By his action he has forced me to make a choice: him or me. In this case or any like it, I *always* choose me. This would be my conceit to have believed and acted upon the notion that I have more right to survive than he.

Here's something for you to consider Jenna ... Is it possible that it is your conceit that makes you feel like you are NOT entitled to live where someone else isn't? Every other creature on earth will vigorously defend its right to live with everything it has, and will not worry about any moral dilemma. Just because humans are capable of higher cognitive functions (OK, judging by some of the posts, not ALL humans ) does not mean that responses generated by our lower cognitive functions are incorrect, or somehow "wrong". Conceit can go both ways. Sometimes it's not about 'right', it's about ability.

I don't know that data bears this out, Elder. While I understand your rationale, I don't agree that every self defense situation is a response to a lethal threat. I can agree that ANY self defense situation MAY escalate into a lethal threat, AND this is often (although not always) influenced by the victim's ability to deescalate and defuse threats using skills other than physical.

Simply put, self defense for women MAY be a response to a lethal threat. But, most sexual assaults, according to every study I've ever read, are NOT intended to be lethal, and even most "successful" assaults are not lethal. That's just not the end game for the bad guys. The goal in most of these, statistically speaking, isn't to kill the victim. And physically attempting to forcibly penetrate the female is despicable and vile, but not generally life threatening.

And, further, this goes back to the disconnect that self defense courses may be undermining their efficacy by teaching to threats that are exaggarated or not realistic. The actual threat is rape. How can a female defend herself from that? Going back to the earthquake kit analogy, this seems to me like preparing for an earthquake in Oklahoma instead of learning about tornados, whcih are the likely threat.

This is a good, rational argument. Unfortunately, it has very little to do with reality. It is the role of professional Law Enforcement personnel to judge intent and restrict the level of force used against those breaking the law. It is NOT the role of ordinary people going about their own business. It has been my experience that when confronted with violence that can't be de-escalated, the only way to stay alive is to assume that your attacker is trying to kill you. Doesn't matter what the reason for the violence is, you have to make that assumption. Anything else is playing Russian Roulette, and hoping that you didn't guess wrong. While "most" and "statistically speaking" are good words to use in an argument, they are terrible things to those that were not a part of the "most" or were in the statistical minority, and there's no way to tell which is which until afterwards.

 

[Steve]

This is a good, rational argument. Unfortunately, it has very little to do with reality. It is the role of professional Law Enforcement personnel to judge intent and restrict the level of force used against those breaking the law. It is NOT the role of ordinary people going about their own business. It has been my experience that when confronted with violence that can't be de-escalated, the only way to stay alive is to assume that your attacker is trying to kill you. Doesn't matter what the reason for the violence is, you have to make that assumption. Anything else is playing Russian Roulette, and hoping that you didn't guess wrong. While "most" and "statistically speaking" are good words to use in an argument, they are terrible things to those that were not a part of the "most" or were in the statistical minority, and there's no way to tell which is which until afterwards.

I'm really craving some actual data here. There's a lot of conjecture, but based upon what i've read about sexual assault, I don't see it borne out that serial murders are more or less of a threat than elsewhere in the country, which is to say that they ahppen but not very often at all. Rape and sexual assault, conversely, are VERY serious concerns given that... what was the statistic... IIRC 4 out of 10 women were sexually assualted within their first year at college.

To be clear, I'm not saying that learning to be a lethal badass is a bad idea for anyone. Knock yourself out. What I am suggesting for discussion, and this is just my opinion, is that the "all attacks are presumed lethal" could be a red herring that distracts from actual, practical, self defense strategies. Or said the other way around, focusing on what an ACTUAL attack is likely to look like is going to be more effectrive than trying a one size fits all, shotgun approach.

In the article referenced above, the women received a total of 2 hours of training in a system called Wen-Do. I looked them up. this is a woman's self defense system created, taught and taken by women. Nowhere on their philosophy page does it talk about being lethal or responding to lethal force; Philosophy Rather they use words like "dominate" and "control." They say that they are, among other things, "build[ing] on participants' prior knowledge and increase their self-confidence by teaching a variety of awareness, avoidance and verbal self-defence strategies, and simple, practical physical techniques that are designed to be effective even against a larger and stronger attacker." Not killing assailants and letting the chips fall where they may.

 

[elder999]

I'm really craving some actual data here. There's a lot of conjecture, but based upon what i've read about sexual assault, I don't see it borne out that serial murders are more or less of a threat than elsewhere in the country, which is to say that they ahppen but not very often at all. Rape and sexual assault, conversely, are VERY serious concerns given that... what was the statistic... IIRC 4 out of 10 women were sexually assualted within their first year at college.

To be clear, I'm not saying that learning to be a lethal badass is a bad idea for anyone. Knock yourself out. What I am suggesting for discussion, and this is just my opinion, is that the "all attacks are presumed lethal" could be a red herring that distracts from actual, practical, self defense strategies. Or said the other way around, focusing on what an ACTUAL attack is likely to look like is going to be more effectrive than trying a one size fits all, shotgun approach.

In the article referenced above, the women received a total of 2 hours of training in a system called Wen-Do. I looked them up. this is a woman's self defense system created, taught and taken by women. Nowhere on their philosophy page does it talk about being lethal or responding to lethal force; Philosophy Rather they use words like "dominate" and "control." They say that they are, among other things, "build[ing] on participants' prior knowledge and increase their self-confidence by teaching a variety of awareness, avoidance and verbal self-defence strategies, and simple, practical physical techniques that are designed to be effective even against a larger and stronger attacker." Not killing assailants and letting the chips fall where they may.

No where did I say that "all attacks are presumed lethal." I made that point about a specific type of attack-sexual assault. We treat it as a lethal threat-it may become one simply by virtue of the intended victim's resistance- simply because of the words that you use like "dominate" and "control, ' which are, after all, what the shrinks will tell us rape is largely about.

Doesn't really matter, any more than that "actual data" you're craving. (Really Steve? Some guy's trying to shove a broomhandle or his penis in your anus, and you're going to stop just short of killing him to make him stop, because it's not a lethal threat, and it's not "justified by the data"?

) Fact is, if a woman is going to resist an actual rape, she can't stop short of lethality-she may have an opportunity to flee after injuring her assailant, and she should take it, but nothing at all should be off the table in this scenario, including stabbing, shooting or bashing his head in with a rock or pipe.

To be clear-there's often a variety of other "defenses' possible prior to the actual assault, including verbal de-escalation, or simply being aware and avoiding the situation (things to which the success statistics of "Wen-do" can be directly attributed) but when it comes to the actual physical act, well-try and kill the guy.Maybe he'll die, maybe he'll take your purse and run away. ...if you're a woman, trained or not, he's likely bigger and stronger than you, and likely has had practice at what he's trying to do. Stop him, by any means necessary.

 

[Steve]

I have a question. What's the goal of self defense? What does success look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

I have a question. What's the goal of self defense? What does success look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Waking up the next morning, relatively unscathed-either because you weren't involved in an incident at all, or because you prevailed.

 

[elder999]

I have a question. What's the goal of self defense? What does success look like?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I have a question. Do you know anyone who's survived being raped? Were they the same person afterward, in any way at all?