Fundamental pillars of self-defense?

[Steve]

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

I would agree with that (although I don't know for sure that we'd define "prevailed" in the same way.)

I understand that you guys are mocking me a bit for suggesting that using lethal force may not be the best tactic. I get it. But the question is, then, why discuss the legality of a situation at all in self defense class? Many of the experts in this thread mention that this is part of the training. I know that "use of force" training is a VERY good idea for anyone who owns a firearm. If the reaction to an assault is independent of the context of the assault, then why do we discuss legality at all? As you guys say, that's for the judge to decide. Right?

Makes no sense to me. It's part of that disconnect I keep mentioning. Don't get me wrong. I'm open to the idea that I'm just too dumb or ignorant or naive to know better. But so far, I keep seeing assertions unsubstantiated by actual information. And truly, what I have seen leads me in a different direction entirely. That programs which are statistically shown to work do not emphasize physicality, and that the physical component does not emphasize killing or being killed. And, again, if time is precious and choices are being made, the emphasis should be on those components of self defense that are most likely to have a positive effect. Shouldn't it?

So, to relate this back to the purpose of this thread, it seems to me that a fundamental pillar of self defense should be context, because training for one context may be a red herring in another.

 

[Steve]

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?

I do. Several. And no, they were not. AND (not but) I am 100% confident that killing the guy wouldn't have helped them at all, nor would knowing how to kill them. They were all assaulted by people they knew and trusted, who used either chemical coercion or threats of influence. In the words of Andy Sandberg in one of my favorite SNL shorts ever, "We gotta stop being figurative and start gettin' literal!"

 

[elder999]

I programs which are statistically shown to work do not emphasize physicality, and that the physical component does not emphasize killing or being killed.

I'd agree, for the most part-and point out that the "Statistically shown to work" part of that whole statement is largely made of women who were not sexually assaulted at all.

]So, to relate this back to the purpose of this thread, it seems to me that a fundamental pillar of self defense should be context, because training for one context may be a red herring in another.

Of course, context is part of situational awareness-getting "bunny hugged" at a party is not a lethal threat.Unwelcome flirting is not a lethal threat. Being bashed over the head, thrown to the ground and having a man jump on top of you is. Waking up in your own bed with a knife being held to your throat by a man pulling down his pants is. Being held against your will in a dorm room after you've said "no" is.

Is that contextual enough for you, Steve?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill your rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat.....

 

[elder999]

I do. Several. And no, they were not. AND (not but) I am 100% confident that killing the guy wouldn't have helped them at all

You're 100% wrong. Ask them.

.

 

[pgsmith]

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.

Sorry, no data. The only data I can offer you is the fact that I attended 2 funerals when I was younger, of guys that I used to hang with that were in the statistical minority of street fights that happened to be lethal.

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.

You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. There IS no "one size fits all" for self defense situations. Every single situation is different, and will require different responses. However, what I am saying is that once you are forced to respond to a violent attack, you need to respond with everything you have as if your attacker is attempting to kill you, because that just may be true. There are a lot of different things that can be done and considered before the violence starts. However, once it has begun, you have to respond as overwhelmingly as possible. If you don't, there's a chance you'll end up dead.

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.

That's true. Also, in a lot of situations that I've discussed with people that have been involved in fights, a simple practical technique is generally all that is needed in order to create enough separation to get away. But, it has been my experience that if you do not practice with the idea of killing your assailant, especially for women, they will hesitate and will not use the appropriate force when the situation calls for it.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey I will help out here Steve,

You throw bad guy to the ground after he attacked you. Said bad guy on the ground reaches for and deploys a knife while on the ground while threatening to kill you. Your now in a lethal situation where force proportionate to what is being brought against you would be reasonable. You could apply lethal force even without the threat as said bad guy has already demonstrated that he wishes you harm and has now introduced a weapon capable of lethal consequences.

 

[Hanzou]

Absolutely clueless!

Yeah, no woman I've ever trained with would just curl up into a little ball and let some psycho beat on them mercilessly. Especially when their child is potentially in danger.

I get the fact that he didn't kill her, but he could have. Letting an animal have their way with you is too much of a risk to take.

 

[Steve]

First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts. Clearly, this is an emotional issue. Pgsmith, I've had my share of funerals lately, and I'm very sorry to have evoked any painful memories. I understand that my conclusions seem very naive to you guys. I get it. But I just see it as being practical. What's the goal of any self defense training? it's been a long thread, but I know someone brought up that there are no guarantees in self defense. It's about stacking the odds in your favor. I wish I could give credit to whomever said it.

According to elder, it's to "wake up" (that's the highest priority). "Relatively unscathed"... subjective, but I think that's pretty clear. "Either because you weren't involved in an incident at all"... this is the best kind of self defense. "Or have prevailed." I said before, this is the sticky part. Prevailed... what does that mean?

As we all SEEM to agree, assaults are not all the same. But I think some are similar enough to create useful and realistic categories. Sexual assault is the topic of the moment. What does prevailing in a sexual assault look like? I'd say it's not being raped. That's success. That's what prevailing looks like. So, what if training with that intent, specifically, could more effectively stack the odds in your favor than other approaches? What if the physicality of training with lethal intent actually distracts from the techniques and drills that more effectively stack the deck?

Horrific things can happen to anyone, but for most people, it's like worrying about being struck by lightning. There are very practical things that we can do that actually improve our ability to assess and react to real world danger that don't involve curb stomping or killing people.

Hey I will help out here Steve,

You throw bad guy to the ground after he attacked you. Said bad guy on the ground reaches for and deploys a knife while on the ground while threatening to kill you. Your now in a lethal situation where force proportionate to what is being brought against you would be reasonable. You could apply lethal force even without the threat as said bad guy has already demonstrated that he wishes you harm and has now introduced a weapon capable of lethal consequences.

Brian, there have been so many different things stated, I'd just like to clarify what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that i could kill the guy legally? If so, don't you think it could be dicey, given that the guy is on the ground and I could run away? It seems pretty dicey to me. Sure, I understand that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But, isn't it better to "wake up relatively unscathed?" Is judged by 12 unscathed?

Or are you speaking morally and not legally? Would it be moral, given the interesting conversation that Jenna encouraged?

 

[elder999]

First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts. Clearly, this is an emotional issue. P

I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill your rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat..... questions of "morality and "legality" notwithstanding: would you take it up the *** forcibly if you knew that you'd live to wake up the next morning, "relatively unscathted."

Would you have "prevaoiled" in that situaiton? Would that look like "success" to you?

I mean, statistically, the "data" reflects that male on male rape doesn't typically result in murder....

 

[Steve]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me you wouldn't kill your rapist, because rape isn't a lethal threat.....

Ah, I see. Okay. Whether I would kill the person or not is irrelevant. Can't honestly say whether I would or not. Maybe so, but if I did, I'm not sure I'd call it self defense, either.

I think the more relevant point is that me taking rape prevention courses would largely be a waste of time. I'm not really at risk. As a middle aged, middle class, family guy who doesn't frequent bars or drink to excess, if I'm not in a category of least likely to be sexaully assaulted, I have to be close. Doesn't mean I would never be raped, but it's not a realistic threat to me. My time would be better spent doing something other than rape prevention. And, to the point that I'm making, given a finite amount of time and money, wouldn't my resources be better spent learning skills that would actually stack the deck in a situation I'm likely to find myself, rather than one which is unlikely?

But, what I see here is... man, if I AM raped, won't I be glad I took those classes?

 

[elder999]

Ah, I see. Okay. Whether I would kill the person or not is irrelevant. Can't honestly say whether I would or not. Maybe so, but if I did, I'm not sure I'd call it self defense, either.

I think the more relevant point is that me taking rape prevention courses would largely be a waste of time. I'm not really at risk. As a middle aged, middle class, family guy who doesn't frequent bars or drink to excess, if I'm not in a category of least likely to be sexaully assaulted, I have to be close. Doesn't mean I would never be raped, but it's not a realistic threat to me. My time would be better spent doing something other than rape prevention. And, to the point that I'm making, given a finite amount of time and money, wouldn't my resources be better spent learning skills that would actually stack the deck in a situation I'm likely to find myself, rather than one which is unlikely?

But, what I see here is... man, if I AM raped, won't I be glad I took those classes?

You see, you've made a lot of assumptions, based upon "the data...."..

Male joggergang-raped - News - JamaicaObserver.com

Gang of 5 men rapes tortures male backpacker

and your "non answer" says VOLUMES about the validity of your position. Really @Steve ? How is whether or not you'd kill the person "irrelevant," when it is the very essence of what we're discussing? More to the point, are you actually saying that middle aged, middle class women who don't frequent bars or drink to excess aren't in danger of being raped, and , more importantly, that those who do so are somehow placing themselves in danger, and somehow not morally justified in using lethal defense against rape because of it? tsk-tsk...

 

[Steve]

You see, you've made a lot of assumptions, based upon the data......

Male joggergang-raped - News - JamaicaObserver.com

Gang of 5 men rapes tortures male backpacker

and your "non answer" says VOLUMES about the validity of your position.

Alright, elder. You win. I lose. You found an article from a few days ago and one from 2003 to support your position. I guess I'm just crazytown.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

First, elder and pgsmith, I appreciate your posts. Clearly, this is an emotional issue. Pgsmith, I've had my share of funerals lately, and I'm very sorry to have evoked any painful memories. I understand that my conclusions seem very naive to you guys. I get it. But I just see it as being practical. What's the goal of any self defense training? it's been a long thread, but I know someone brought up that there are no guarantees in self defense. It's about stacking the odds in your favor. I wish I could give credit to whomever said it.

According to elder, it's to "wake up" (that's the highest priority). "Relatively unscathed"... subjective, but I think that's pretty clear. "Either because you weren't involved in an incident at all"... this is the best kind of self defense. "Or have prevailed." I said before, this is the sticky part. Prevailed... what does that mean?

As we all SEEM to agree, assaults are not all the same. But I think some are similar enough to create useful and realistic categories. Sexual assault is the topic of the moment. What does prevailing in a sexual assault look like? I'd say it's not being raped. That's success. That's what prevailing looks like. So, what if training with that intent, specifically, could more effectively stack the odds in your favor than other approaches? What if the physicality of training with lethal intent actually distracts from the techniques and drills that more effectively stack the deck?

Horrific things can happen to anyone, but for most people, it's like worrying about being struck by lightning. There are very practical things that we can do that actually improve our ability to assess and react to real world danger that don't involve curb stomping or killing people.
Brian, there have been so many different things stated, I'd just like to clarify what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that i could kill the guy legally? If so, don't you think it could be dicey, given that the guy is on the ground and I could run away? It seems pretty dicey to me. Sure, I understand that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But, isn't it better to "wake up relatively unscathed?" Is judged by 12 unscathed?

Or are you speaking morally and not legally? Would it be moral, given the interesting conversation that Jenna encouraged?

Steve, guy is on the ground pulls a knife and just maybe you can't run? Maybe your wife and kid's are with you or it is happening in your house. Lots of situations could dictate that you can't out run your attacker. As in they may be younger than you, faster, or you may be injured from their attack and unable to run and I could go on and on. Bottom line is they brought a lethal weapon ie. knife into the conflict and created a situation where lethal force not only could be warranted but also could be justified.

 

[elder999]

Alright, elder. You win. I lose. You found an article from a few days ago and one from 2003 to support your position. I guess I'm just crazytown.

You know what crime is even more unreported than man on woman rape?

Man on man rape. Sorry, more less than valid argument on your part....

I mean, you seem to value "data" and "studies" more than most scientists I know...and I'm a scientist...here's the data :

"Rape crisis counselors estimate that while only one in 50 raped women report the crime to the police, the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher (Brochman, 1991). U"

I mean, it's a simple enough question, @Steve : you wake up in bed, and there's some 260 lbl. deviant there, and he's gonna slam something up your old Hershey highway until he's had enough......the question was never whether or not you'd kill him, but whether you'd be justified in using lethal force to keep him from having his way with you....(BTW-for those who are offended by my deliberately offensive and inflammatory language-it's called "woofing," is part and parcel of (some) proper self-defense training, and is intended to offend, intimidate and enflame...)

So, @Steve : do you try to kill him to keep him from "having his way" with you, or do you just bend over and take it?

 

[Steve]

Well, shoot, elder. What if I were kidnapped and found myself in a sex ring in some back country area of Taiwan being gang raped by a half dozen Taiwanese midget porn stars? Because the likelihood of either is about the same. How much time should I spend considering either scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

Well, shoot, elder. What if I were kidnapped and found myself in a sex ring in some back country area of Taiwan being gang raped by a half dozen Taiwanese midget porn stars? Because the likelihood of either is about the same. How much time should I spend considering either scenario?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just answer the question....I mean, unless it makes you uncomfortable.....because, I don't know, you think you'd like it or something.....

.....I mean, I spent the better part of my childhood being poked and prodded and having all manner of medical stuff stuck into me.....while I'd never ask for it-what, with its unwelcome associations with illness and impending death for me- it's okay with me if you like things like Taiwanese midget porn star penis forcibly violating your anus....I don't judge...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

That is the thing about personal protection skills Steve. You may never need them, or you may need them in the next ten minutes. You just never know. If you look only at statistics your chances of having to use them are low but...... wait for it..... if you need them you need them now! Look back through time and history and you can rest assured there are many people who wish they had them when some thing violent happened to them. Think of it as insurance. You may never use your insurance but if your house burns down you certainly will be happy that you had homeowners insurance! It would really, really suck if you didn't!!!

If you look through this thread you will see people with experience and training advocating:

Awareness, Avoidance, de-escalation skills both verbal and non-verbal, understanding human behavior and criminal behavior, understanding crime in your area, empty hand physical personal protection skills, weapon training both blunt, edged and firearms and a whole lot more.

 

[drop bear]

Mostly like always? Or mostly like there is some event, circumstance or situation might cause you to not possess that conceit?

There would be circumstances where I would risk my life to save others. But it depends on the person.

The conceit is of course that I get to make the choice.

 

[drop bear]

Murder = killing with intent
killing to prevent murder = killing with intent
Can you say why these seem the same and yet you have said one is wrong and one is not?

The murderer has the choice though. If he does not attack nobody dies.

The defender has to choose between killing or being killed. Which is an unfair choice to force upon someone. It is an unreasonable threat to face. Just being assaulted is an unreasonable threat to face. That is why the attacker is viewed with less empathy.

And to win fights you need to fight with bad intentions. And believe you have more right to win that fight than he does.

It is a fundamental pillar. Fight from the moral high ground. Or you wont be in the moment 100%

Murder is premeditated by the way. Not just intent.

 

[drop bear]

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.

If the threat is still deadly and the situation is still live.

The stabby one I did a while back. Mate of mine got stabbed a few times and we are wrestling a pair of scissors off the guy and a third guy came in and kicked him in the head. Which did suck the fight out of the guy.

He still had the weapon. May have still got up if something really got pear shaped. The threat was still there.