Groin and Eyes Attacks.........Cheap shots?

[Marry]

They are targets the same as anything else. Eyes are espically good in that they tend to impede the ability to fight well.

More like the in-ability to see!And if they can't see ya that makes them a pretty useless attacker.

 

[ginshun]

Obviously you have to assess the situation, to see whether or not shots like that are warrented. In the case that you decide they are I say go for it. If the situation is life or death for you or a loved one, then anything goes. The best ways to immobilize someone are shots to the eyes, throat or leg joints. It makes it hard for them to fight back if they can't see, cant' breath or can't walk.


I am not going to gouge someones eyes out in a wrestling match with a buddy, but I sure as hell am if a stranger is going after my kid with a bat.

 

[sammy3170]

I cant be bothered reading 5 pages of replies so I will just post my thoughts. If your life is at stake do ANYTHING you can. Stab them in the eye with a pen. If it is not well I wouldn't bite them as you never know what they've got. Go for eyes but know that if they go blind and your life wasn't threatened you would be in the poo. Lastly kicking in the balls though painful can be somewhat ineffective against a large adrenalised man. Yes it will hurt but will it stop?

Cheers
Sammy

 

[MJS]

Sammy brought up some good points. In a life and death situation, doing anything is usually the route that people take. However, like it was also said, you need to be 100% sure of the situation and judge accordingly what you do, otherwise you could be facing some serious legal problems.

One thing that I did find interesting in the post was when this was said:

Lastly kicking in the balls though painful can be somewhat ineffective against a large adrenalised man. Yes it will hurt but will it stop?

Now, speaking for myself here, I'm not a fan of the one shot one kill mentality. Now, this is certainly not a slam on Sammy or the post, but if we stop and think about it, will anything we do, be it a punch, kick, or whatever, work and stop the person if he is a person like the one mentioned above?? Large, has the adrenaline racing, possibly under the influence of something.

IMHO, we should not rely on one thing, but instead a series of moves. Looking thorough some past posts, I've read mixed views on things such as eye gouges and biting, with some people saying they're effective and others saying they are not. One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that these moves, just like all of the others we have, can be used to distract and set up additional moves. A quick jab to the eyes can momentarily distract your attacker, to allow you to either, A) Follow up with other moves or B) get out of the area.

Everything has its time and place. Its just a matter of finding the right time and the right place.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sammy brought up some good points. In a life and death situation, doing anything is usually the route that people take. However, like it was also said, you need to be 100% sure of the situation and judge accordingly what you do, otherwise you could be facing some serious legal problems.

One thing that I did find interesting in the post was when this was said:



Now, speaking for myself here, I'm not a fan of the one shot one kill mentality. Now, this is certainly not a slam on Sammy or the post, but if we stop and think about it, will anything we do, be it a punch, kick, or whatever, work and stop the person if he is a person like the one mentioned above?? Large, has the adrenaline racing, possibly under the influence of something.

IMHO, we should not rely on one thing, but instead a series of moves. Looking thorough some past posts, I've read mixed views on things such as eye gouges and biting, with some people saying they're effective and others saying they are not. One thing that we need to keep in mind, is that these moves, just like all of the others we have, can be used to distract and set up additional moves. A quick jab to the eyes can momentarily distract your attacker, to allow you to either, A) Follow up with other moves or B) get out of the area.

Everything has its time and place. Its just a matter of finding the right time and the right place.

Mike

In answer to your question "will anything work", it might help to share some of my experience as an LEO. Techniques that are based on pain are usually referred to simply as "Pain compliance". They work because they over come the person's desire to continue fighting. These can often take the form of pressure points being pressed or strikes that don't incapacitate, but simply cause pain.

However, since that "desire" is really a descision by the person, much of whether they continue to fight is based on them. Therefore, if someone "desires" to continue fighting badly enough, they can overcome "Pain compliance" techniques to do it.

There are also techniques designed to cause "Disfunction". These techniques work under the principle that they cause a response within the body of the subject that actually prevent part or all of the subject to not work properly. These can take the form of strikes to certain nerve junctions, such as a thigh kick, that result in a large muscle group becoming unable to function. This could also be a strike to a major nerve group in the jaw or the neck that renders a subject unconcious. "Pain compliance" techniques works much of the time, "Disfunction" techniques work much more often because they aren't reliant on a decision by the subject.

I've found that techniques that result in incapacitation, such as strangles(especially hadaka-jime) are extremely effective against even the most pain compliant. A man who is capable of sustaining several strikes to the groin, for example, can be rendered unconcious in seconds by use of a rear naked choke. Why? Because it doesn't rely on his deciding to "cooperate". The mechanisms, once they are put in to place, are outside his control. His brain will eventually be starved of oxynated blood and he will lose conciousness.

What you said is correct. We cannot rely on just one technique to attempt to control all subjects. I tend to look at different techniques by percentages. A pressure point technique might be a 60% technique, while the hadaka-jime might be a 90%+ technique.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Groin and eye attacks? When in a real fight most of us will want to end the fight as quickly as possible and leave. The book "Anything goes" and those written by Marc"the animal" Macyoung talks about there is "NO RULES" in fighting. People will use anything and everything around them to fight with.

Cheap shots are no longer around today? Samurai, knights,gun duels with twenty paces are no longer observed into todays world. Two friends arguing and fighting to slug it out may consider not using cheap shots?

Remember in today's world "America" there are laws and what ever damage you cause? You will pay for it. Keep in mind you may win the fight? but what about revenge from the other guy later?

The best thing in to Avoid, if possible? ....Anythings goes when the fight starts...you will never know what the other guys has on him. .....Aloha

 

[KungFuWarrior]

The best thing in to Avoid, if possible? ....Anythings goes when the fight starts...you will never know what the other guys has on him. .....Aloha

I agree with you the best thing to do is try and avoid the confrontation alltogeter. I look at it like this when the fighting starts that means that my opponent or opponents goal is to hurt me or my family at which point I will use whatever means is necessary to stop him. At my school we train to use groin shots and other shots that are often referred to as "cheap" shots, but we don't train to use them as finishing manuevers but as a way to create an opening for say a knockout or a takedown.

 

[MJS]

In answer to your question "will anything work", it might help to share some of my experience as an LEO. Techniques that are based on pain are usually referred to simply as "Pain compliance". They work because they over come the person's desire to continue fighting. These can often take the form of pressure points being pressed or strikes that don't incapacitate, but simply cause pain.

However, since that "desire" is really a descision by the person, much of whether they continue to fight is based on them. Therefore, if someone "desires" to continue fighting badly enough, they can overcome "Pain compliance" techniques to do it.

There are also techniques designed to cause "Disfunction". These techniques work under the principle that they cause a response within the body of the subject that actually prevent part or all of the subject to not work properly. These can take the form of strikes to certain nerve junctions, such as a thigh kick, that result in a large muscle group becoming unable to function. This could also be a strike to a major nerve group in the jaw or the neck that renders a subject unconcious. "Pain compliance" techniques works much of the time, "Disfunction" techniques work much more often because they aren't reliant on a decision by the subject.

I've found that techniques that result in incapacitation, such as strangles(especially hadaka-jime) are extremely effective against even the most pain compliant. A man who is capable of sustaining several strikes to the groin, for example, can be rendered unconcious in seconds by use of a rear naked choke. Why? Because it doesn't rely on his deciding to "cooperate". The mechanisms, once they are put in to place, are outside his control. His brain will eventually be starved of oxynated blood and he will lose conciousness.

What you said is correct. We cannot rely on just one technique to attempt to control all subjects. I tend to look at different techniques by percentages. A pressure point technique might be a 60% technique, while the hadaka-jime might be a 90%+ technique.

Thank you for taking the time to give more insight to this subject. :asian:

This is probably one of the main reasons why I always stress to be as well rounded as you can. If one tech. is not working, move onto something else until you find something that does work.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as a LEO, I'm sure you have some sort of 'Use of Force" ladder that you follow? IE: Pain compliance, OC, etc. The reason I ask, is because it appears that is the method that is being followed above...pain and dysfunction techs.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

Thank you for taking the time to give more insight to this subject. :asian:

This is probably one of the main reasons why I always stress to be as well rounded as you can. If one tech. is not working, move onto something else until you find something that does work.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as a LEO, I'm sure you have some sort of 'Use of Force" ladder that you follow? IE: Pain compliance, OC, etc. The reason I ask, is because it appears that is the method that is being followed above...pain and dysfunction techs.

Mike

As a general rule, law enforcement agencies tend to place simple pain compliance techniques (i.e. pressure points, joint locks, OC Spray) before disfunction techniques (LVNR/Rear naked choke, Baton strikes, Brachial strikes, etc), because disfunction techniques have a higher likelyhood of injury involved. That is not a hard and fast rule, however, as the Taser tends to be a lower threshold use of force because of it's low likelyhood of permanent injury compared to other techniques while still being the ultimate in disfunction causing tools.

 

[Martial_Maniac]

In my system, some of the most basic forms you learn have attacks to the eyes and groin, so I think it's fair to attack these areas if you are defending yourself. But then again, why would we use martial arts in any other way?

 

[Loki]

I feel like I'm repeating other posts already, but they're all on the right track. There are no cheap shots when your life or safety are on the line. Everything goes. As for not being able to strengthen weak points, well, that's exactly what makes them weak points. Eyes, groin, windpipe, nose, lip, ear, knee, toe, shin (unless you kill all the nerves in them like Muay Thai champions in Thailand, solar plexus, spine, ribs, back of the head... these are all areas that can't be stregthened. These should be your targets when defending yourself/others.

~ Loki

 

[Jerry]

More like the in-ability to see!And if they can't see ya that makes them a pretty useless attacker.

This is a commonly held if rather false belief. If you are touching someone (or they are touching you), you don't *need* to see them; though the ability to work by touch reference varies from person to person.

I am not going to gouge someones eyes out in a wrestling match with a buddy, but I sure as hell am if a stranger is going after my kid with a bat.

However, like it was also said, you need to be 100% sure of the situation and judge accordingly what you do, otherwise you could be facing some serious legal problems.

A match is not a fight. I'm curious how you determine "warranted". If my little 170lbs was standing in front of you unarmed, would you try to reign yourself in? Considering how fast fights are essentially over, will you have time to realize that you are loosing and change tactic? Once I've got the upper-hand, what (other than exaustion) stops me from beating you to death... by then it's too late to make that determination.

 

[MJS]

A match is not a fight. I'm curious how you determine "warranted". If my little 170lbs was standing in front of you unarmed, would you try to reign yourself in? Considering how fast fights are essentially over, will you have time to realize that you are loosing and change tactic? Once I've got the upper-hand, what (other than exaustion) stops me from beating you to death... by then it's too late to make that determination.

Not quite sure who you're addressing this to, considering you are quoting 2 different people here..myself and ginshun. However, seeing that you quoted something I said,

However, like it was also said, you need to be 100% sure of the situation and judge accordingly what you do, otherwise you could be facing some serious legal problems.

I'll address my part.

A few things to take into consideration here. What is the situation we're in? Are we sucker punched? Do we have the attacker in front of us? Are there weapons? Is there more than 1 attacker? Is escape an option?

As you can see, the list can go on and on. One thing to keep in mind is that we're going to fight like we train. Adding in some aliveness and realism to our training, rather than always training in a static fashion, will assist you in dealing with that adrenal dump.

We are talking about groin shots and eye gouges here. Does the situation, whatever it may be, warrant an eye gouge?? If you're walking down the street and some homeless person asks you for money, you say no and keep walking, he did nothing to warrant an eye gouge. Now, if you say NO, keep walking and he starts to follow you, grabbing your shoulder, does that warrant an eye gouge?? IMO, no! Now, in the process of that grab, he pulls a knife. As you can see, the situation is escalating. That being said, we need to be able to judge what we're going to do, no matter how stressfull the situation is. If a LEO finds him/her self in a situation that is rapidly escalating, they need to make split second choices, and at the same time, make sure they're making the right choice. If they shot someone when a less lethal option was available, I'm sure there would be some serious questions to be answered.

Once I've got the upper-hand, what (other than exaustion) stops me from beating you to death... by then it's too late to make that determination.

Whats to stop the defender from re-gaining the upper hand??

Mike

 

[Jerry]

Whats to stop the defender from re-gaining the upper hand??

Loss of momentum / position. Once you are on the ground being stomped, it's a little late to decide "oh! I should do more than I did".

It's always been one of the complaints by grapplers to this discussion... the assumption that the person going for the eyes and groin only starts donig so once he's mounted and being pounded. At that point, it's not going to change the outcome.

Same applies here. When your opponent is 25 feet from you, you have an option (for example) to deploy a handgun. When we are in the middle of a fight, and you decide "Oh heck! This guy is much better than I am", your opponent can prevent you from deploying your firearm.

Any reciprocity of force rule suffers this same fate. When you've been disoriented by that solid blow to the head. When you are on your stomach on the ground with the back of your head being pummelled. When you are tied up standing in just a crappy position, you are less likely to have a positive outcome than at that moment when the fight started.

In both my reasearch and observation, most fights are actually decided in the first couple seconds. After that, the person that's loosing is going to loose. Reversals happen, but are not terribly common. Why do you think boxing matches stop when one guy goes down?

Now, if you say NO, keep walking and he starts to follow you, grabbing your shoulder, does that warrant an eye gouge?? IMO, no! Now, in the process of that grab, he pulls a knife. As you can see, the situation is escalating.

In your story, what did he do? Back up, pull a knife and show it too you? Much of what I've seen of stabbings, you just get stabbed. There isn't this period of warning where the knife is paraded around. That's exactly the problem.

The tactical folder I carry has a black blade. Would you like to know why?

There's two schools of though on knife use. One is to carry a shiny blade. The nice thing about this is that the opponent is distracted and focused on the fact that you have a knife. It is hoped that this will cause them to be distracted during the course of cutting them up.

The other school of thought is that it's better for the balde to remain unnoticed. It's quite possible to cut someone without them realizing that they are being cut. By the time they do notice, and escilate their response, you've already opened up several major arteries. There are even slapping cuts in my art, part of the purpose of which is to overwhelm the cutting sensation so that the opponent doesn't realize it's happening.

But even assuming that your opponent doesn't have a weapon, what if he simply wins? You are dazed and semi-consious on the ground and he decides to kill you. What position are you in to do anything about it then? Do you think you would have done better to try your hardest to win from the get-go?

 

[MJS]

Loss of momentum / position. Once you are on the ground being stomped, it's a little late to decide "oh! I should do more than I did".

There is going to be 3 phases during the attack..before, during and after. As I stated in my previous post, we need to be constantly aware of changes. Yes, I agree, to wait until we are already on the ground before we realize, "Hmmm...gee, I should have done something to prevent this!!" is not the best course of action to take. But again, what could we have done prior?? Again, thats why I say its important to be aware.

It's always been one of the complaints by grapplers to this discussion... the assumption that the person going for the eyes and groin only starts donig so once he's mounted and being pounded. At that point, it's not going to change the outcome.

See above regarding being aware and not waiting.

Same applies here. When your opponent is 25 feet from you, you have an option (for example) to deploy a handgun. When we are in the middle of a fight, and you decide "Oh heck! This guy is much better than I am", your opponent can prevent you from deploying your firearm.

Again, I mention the before, during and after phases.

Any reciprocity of force rule suffers this same fate. When you've been disoriented by that solid blow to the head. When you are on your stomach on the ground with the back of your head being pummelled. When you are tied up standing in just a crappy position, you are less likely to have a positive outcome than at that moment when the fight started.

We can look at this a few different ways here. First, we should not assume that that blow to the head is going to put us down and out for good. Speaking for me only, I'm not a fan of the one shot one kill mentality. Now, are we talking about a sucker punch?? If I was in a verbal confrontation with someone, the last thing I'm going to do is turn my back on the guy. Why, so he can hit me?? The importance of being aware comes to mind again.

In both my reasearch and observation, most fights are actually decided in the first couple seconds. After that, the person that's loosing is going to loose. Reversals happen, but are not terribly common.

We can't predict the outcome. We can hope for the best though. We can "what if" this to death, but in the above paragraph, we are going off of what you have seen. Everyone will have a different expereince.

Why do you think boxing matches stop when one guy goes down?

Because its a sport with rules. If on the street, the chances of the fight continuing are good. IE: The victim goes down, but the bad guy has to get in a few last shots before leaving.

In your story, what did he do? Back up, pull a knife and show it too you? Much of what I've seen of stabbings, you just get stabbed. There isn't this period of warning where the knife is paraded around. That's exactly the problem.

Never said that there was a period where the knife was 'paraded' around. I said in the process of that grab, he pulls a knife. Now, could he grab me and stab me in the back? Yup. Could he grab me, turn me around and stab me in the stomach? Yup. Can he grab me, turn me around, and wave the knife in a threatening manner? Yup. Training in the arts does not make any of us Supermen, and I certianly never said that I was a Superman. Again, we can "what if" this to death. We can't predict the outcome, but we can hope for the best.

But even assuming that your opponent doesn't have a weapon, what if he simply wins? You are dazed and semi-consious on the ground and he decides to kill you. What position are you in to do anything about it then? Do you think you would have done better to try your hardest to win from the get-go?

Thats correct, what if?? What if this, what if that. Again, we can sit and come up with countless senarios. In yours, it seems that you have the defender in a bad position all of the time.

Well Jerry, I've given my thoughts. I would however, like to hear from you regarding this subject. If you were in that situation, getting grabbed, what would be your response? Would you take the guys eyes for a mere push? A grab? Calling you a name?

We can sit 10 people, ask them the same question, and most likely get a different reply from the majority of them. So...will any of them be able to come up with "The" answer? People are taken to court all the time. I don't want to stand IFO the judge and have to answer, "Yes your Honor, I blinded this man for life because he stood in my way and asked me for a dollar for food."

Mike

 

[Jerry]

There is going to be 3 phases during the attack..before, during and after. As I stated in my previous post, we need to be constantly aware of changes. Yes, I agree, to wait until we are already on the ground before we realize, "Hmmm...gee, I should have done something to prevent this!!" is not the best course of action to take. But again, what could we have done prior??

To address the particular case of this topic: we could have gone ahead and not limited the violence of our response (avoiding eyes for example) once the fight had started.

We can look at this a few different ways here. First, we should not assume that that blow to the head is going to put us down and out for good. Speaking for me only, I'm not a fan of the one shot one kill mentality. Now, are we talking about a sucker punch?? If I was in a verbal confrontation with someone, the last thing I'm going to do is turn my back on the guy. Why, so he can hit me?? The importance of being aware comes to mind again.

Although Geoff Thompson does indeed support the possability of a fight ending in that first hit, that's not really what I'm talking about.

In most of the fights I've seen, there's a point very early in (sometimes with that first hit) at which one person becomes dominant in the fight. Even going back to my SCA days, the fights are pretty even then pretty one-sided; and only very rarely does someone who is "loosing" come back from that position (even though the same two people fighting again may have a reversed outcome).

When someone has gotten that moemtairy advantage, and pressed it, it is difficult and unlikely for their opponent to recover unless there is a break in the fighting. Giving up tactics which may give you that advantage, and trying to revert to them only after you have lost parity and are suffering under the momentum of your opponent's attack, is not (in my experience) an effective strategy.

We can't predict the outcome. We can hope for the best though. We can "what if" this to death, but in the above paragraph, we are going off of what you have seen. Everyone will have a different expereince.

If outcomes were known, there would be no reason for this conversation. The question at hand is "do you try to guess the outcome and respond appropriately" (which appears to be your position), or do you "assume the worst and respond appropriately" (which would be mine).

Because its a sport with rules. If on the street, the chances of the fight continuing are good. IE: The victim goes down, but the bad guy has to get in a few last shots before leaving.

I believe that you missed my point. Why not simply continue boxing with one guy on the ground? One of the several true answers is that the person still on his feet will dominate a boxing match almost every time. The fight is essentially over. Stopping is a pause and restart.

I'm less worried about the "last few shots" and more worried about the person that simply kills me.

Never said that there was a period where the knife was 'paraded' around. I said in the process of that grab, he pulls a knife. Now, could he grab me and stab me in the back? Yup. Could he grab me, turn me around and stab me in the stomach? Yup. Can he grab me, turn me around, and wave the knife in a threatening manner? Yup. Training in the arts does not make any of us Supermen, and I certianly never said that I was a Superman. Again, we can "what if" this to death. We can't predict the outcome, but we can hope for the best.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted you; but you seem to be advocating a minimalist response until you become aware of the knife, only then reacting with more force. My counter to that is that such a dely may cost you the fight (i.e. your life).

Thats correct, what if?? What if this, what if that. Again, we can sit and come up with countless senarios. In yours, it seems that you have the defender in a bad position all of the time.

No, but it's the times that we are in a bad position I'm worried about. There's not much of a discussion for when we win.

Well Jerry, I've given my thoughts. I would however, like to hear from you regarding this subject. If you were in that situation, getting grabbed, what would be your response? Would you take the guys eyes for a mere push? A grab? Calling you a name?

It would take fear that I was in immenant danger. Certainly battery on my person is likely to prevoke a violent response. In my adult life (the occasional time doing police work not withstanding), I've been very successful at simply leaving. It's generally my first choice.

 

[MJS]

To address the particular case of this topic: we could have gone ahead and not limited the violence of our response (avoiding eyes for example) once the fight had started.

Yes, of course many options can be available to us. I was using the eye gouge and groin attack in my posts, as this is the subject of the discussion.

Although Geoff Thompson does indeed support the possability of a fight ending in that first hit, that's not really what I'm talking about.

As for the one shot/one kill...Is it possible to KO someone with one shot? Of course, but IMO, its something that should not be relied on.

In most of the fights I've seen, there's a point very early in (sometimes with that first hit) at which one person becomes dominant in the fight. Even going back to my SCA days, the fights are pretty even then pretty one-sided; and only very rarely does someone who is "loosing" come back from that position (even though the same two people fighting again may have a reversed outcome).

OK, point taken.

When someone has gotten that moemtairy advantage, and pressed it, it is difficult and unlikely for their opponent to recover unless there is a break in the fighting. Giving up tactics which may give you that advantage, and trying to revert to them only after you have lost parity and are suffering under the momentum of your opponent's attack, is not (in my experience) an effective strategy.

I understand what you're saying Jerry. Maybe I was unclear. Please allow me to explain. When faced with a potential attacker, the situation may unfold with him yelling, swearing at you, etc. This is the before phase. He has not yet physically attacked you, just verbally at this point. Being aware of your surroundings, his actions, possible weapons, etc. is key here. I'm not an advocate of fighting, so using verbal skills, keeping your eyes on him, your hands up in a non-threatening manner, but in a way that they can be used as an offense, ex: Geoff Thompsons "Fence", basically doing what you can to de-escalate the situation w/o having to resort to violence.

Now, he moves towards you and appears to prepare for a swing at you. This is the during phase. Considering the hands should be up, you already have a fairly good defense going on your part. A pre-emptive strike on the defenders part is in order here. Thompson and Blaurer come to mind here again.

Basically I'm not saying to give up anything. In a life/death situation, use whats available to you. Just be prepared to justify your actions. Base your actions on his.

If outcomes were known, there would be no reason for this conversation. The question at hand is "do you try to guess the outcome and respond appropriately" (which appears to be your position), or do you "assume the worst and respond appropriately" (which would be mine).

I'm not going to guess anything. Again, maybe I was not clear in explaining. I based my reply off of your comment here:

In both my reasearch and observation, most fights are actually decided in the first couple seconds. After that, the person that's loosing is going to loose. Reversals happen, but are not terribly common.

We can't predict that every fight will turn out like you have witnessed. I'm going to respond in the manner that is presented to me at the time. If the guy pulls a knife and is advancing towards me, I would think that attempting to talk him down is not the best option. If I'm pushed, why respond with a knee break? I would think that I'd be asked why I didnt, as a trained Martial Artist, respond in a better fashion.

I believe that you missed my point. Why not simply continue boxing with one guy on the ground? One of the several true answers is that the person still on his feet will dominate a boxing match almost every time. The fight is essentially over. Stopping is a pause and restart.

Very possible Sir, but we are still talking about 2 different things: boxing and the street. Boxing rules do not allow that. The same can be said when they clinch. What happens? They are broken apart and re started. In reality, many things such as elbows, knees, headbutts and biting, can be applied from that range.

Correct me if I've misinterpreted you; but you seem to be advocating a minimalist response until you become aware of the knife, only then reacting with more force. My counter to that is that such a dely may cost you the fight (i.e. your life).

In the senario I mentioned, I was not speaking for myself. I'm using John Q. Citizen. Now, speaking for me, I'd do my best to not let it get to that next level. Being aware of the surroundings: Ex: does he continue to follow me? Why turn my back on this guy, especially if he chooses to follow me. Hes making an aggressive more towards me and I'd respond in the proper fashion. This is where having knowledge of locks/controlling methods other than just striking, is important. I take it by your reply, that for someone standing in your way, asking for money, possibly putting his hand on you, that you would not think twice about serious harm? Again, keep in mind, that this man has done nothing in an overly aggressive manner. Now, of course, like you stated, if the situation escalated, I would respond as such.

It would take fear that I was in immenant danger. Certainly battery on my person is likely to prevoke a violent response. In my adult life (the occasional time doing police work not withstanding), I've been very successful at simply leaving. It's generally my first choice.

In closing Sir, I'll state again, that I'm not a fan of fighting. I don't go out looking to start them. I always do my best to be aware of my surroundings, especially in an area that I have never been to or rarely frequent. I've always been a believer of doing everything I could to talk my way out first, and use physical responses as a last resort.

Thank you again for an interesting discussion.

Mike

 

[Jerry]

Hrm. We seem to be disputing thigns we agree on, and I'm not sure how that is happening.

If I've somehow come across as opposing avoidance, verbal deescilation, running, etc., I certainly did not intend to. I'm not advocating attacking everyone who appears to pose a potential threat; and am opposed to such actions.

The question had seemd to be about responses when the physical altercation had acutally occured. Specifically, whether it is appropriate to use "cheap shots" in a fight.

It seems that some responses had been to the effect of "only if your are loosing" or "only if you are at an obvious disadvantage such as if they are armed". I disagree with both of these responses.

The *reason* that I disagree is because I think it's fallacious to presume that you can reliably tell one from the other. Of course, I make exception of "obvious lack of threat" (I would not attempt to inflict great harm on a 6 year old that attacked me); but I am more concerned with the more generic situations (capable adult vs capable adult). In these instances, I don't *really* know that I'm going to "win"; and I don't really know what the outcome of loosing will be.

I do recognize that, unfortunately, the laws in many (most) juristictions disagree. While I understand the reason, I believe this to be a mistake on the part of the law in question. Ironically, the one state I know to not to this (Texas), in my opinion, goes to far in the opposite direction (allowing the use of deadly force against trespassers on property, not just in houses, and car theives).

Thank you as well

Jerry

 

[MJS]

Hrm. We seem to be disputing thigns we agree on, and I'm not sure how that is happening.

LOL! Yeah, I hear ya. Unfortunately it seems that it happens alot on forums. Sometimes when we're thinking one thing, our fingers are typing something else. Much easier, especially when attempting to explain something technical, to do it in person.

If I've somehow come across as opposing avoidance, verbal deescilation, running, etc., I certainly did not intend to. I'm not advocating attacking everyone who appears to pose a potential threat; and am opposed to such actions.

The question had seemd to be about responses when the physical altercation had acutally occured. Specifically, whether it is appropriate to use "cheap shots" in a fight.

It seems that some responses had been to the effect of "only if your are loosing" or "only if you are at an obvious disadvantage such as if they are armed". I disagree with both of these responses.

The *reason* that I disagree is because I think it's fallacious to presume that you can reliably tell one from the other. Of course, I make exception of "obvious lack of threat" (I would not attempt to inflict great harm on a 6 year old that attacked me); but I am more concerned with the more generic situations (capable adult vs capable adult). In these instances, I don't *really* know that I'm going to "win"; and I don't really know what the outcome of loosing will be.

Pretty much in any debate, we're certainly going to get a ton of mixed views. Looking back at the very first post, it is asking if these shots are cheap. IMHO, no, but as I've said many times, everything has its time and place. We just need to make sure that we find that right time.

I do recognize that, unfortunately, the laws in many (most) juristictions disagree. While I understand the reason, I believe this to be a mistake on the part of the law in question. Ironically, the one state I know to not to this (Texas), in my opinion, goes to far in the opposite direction (allowing the use of deadly force against trespassers on property, not just in houses, and car theives).

Yes, laws may vary from state to state. Deadly force just because someone is tresspassing....that sounds a bit excessive IMO. Not disputing you, just stating an opinion.

Thank you as well

:asian:

Mike

 

[Jerry]

Yes, laws may vary from state to state. Deadly force just because someone is tresspassing....that sounds a bit excessive IMO. Not disputing you, just stating an opinion.

The case that comes to mind was on Halloween in the late 90s. A foregin exchange student, in costume, was looking for a halloween party and went to the wrong house. The owner of the house came out into his doorway or porch, produced a firearm and order the student to leave. The student, who did not understand English well, and (one supposes) got confused that it was a costume, continued to approach. The resident shot the student in his front yeard from his porch or doorway, killing him. The shooter was aquitted.

In Florida, I would be required to enter my house and shut the door (if possible). I am not required to retreat from my house; but if a jury could not find that I was in reasonable fear, I still could not shoot him.

Texas, in my opinion as well, goes too far.