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

[sgtmac_46]

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.

Mike

That's a dangerous assumption that you can't be taken out with one shot. I've been witness to a number fights in the street, and among truly dangerous men, one shot knockouts are not only not rare, but fairly common. They are common because they use the element of surprise. The signs of an impending assault are often times subtle.

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.
Mike

"Hope" is not a plan of action.

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.

Mike

Knives are rarely displayed before use. When knives are displayed, it is as a warning or a ward against what is perceived as a threat. Sometimes the knife is used as a tool such as in a mugging, but this isn't the majority of instances.

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?
Mike

I'd take the guys eyes if his "push" or "grab" I perceived as merely an opening move in a larger threat.

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

Eace person must answer this question for themselves. Do they fear being tried more than being dead or seriously injured? I personally will take my chances with the court. You can hire someone to do the fighting for you in court, you can't hire a professional to defend you in the street (unless you're wealthy, I suppose). They also allow appeals in court. They don't allow appeals on the street.

Besides, I'm not going to stand IFO the judge and say "Yes your Honor, I blinded this man for life because he stood in my way and asked me for a dollar for food."
Mike

What's really going to happen is, my attorney is going to stand in front of the jury and say "My client, a family man with no criminal history, was attacked by a violent criminal with an extensive criminal history of, among other things, robbery and assault. My client felt, at the point at which this brutal monster grabbed my client and demanded money, that his life was in danger. My client has a wife and two children, and was in fear for his life from an imminent threat from this career criminal. My client responded, out of fear, by doing what he felt was necessary to protect himself from this evil, evil man. Is there anyone on this jury who believes that my client should have simply allowed himself to be brutalized by this predatory monster, simply so that this monster can support his crack cocaine addiction? My client was in FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, and responded with the universal right of self-defense." I never even have to testify, because I can't be forced to testify against myself. All they have is "One-eyed" Pete and his partner, Skid-Row Willie, to testify against me, and they're both in prison orange because they had to be brought from the jail where they are serving time for unrelated robberys to testify. When they testify, my attorney gets to bring up their (extensive) criminal history to impeach their credibility.

Not saying your conclusions are wrong, these are just some thoughts that occurred to me. There's room for more than one interpretation and opinion on the subject.

 

[MJS]

That's a dangerous assumption that you can't be taken out with one shot. I've been witness to a number fights in the street, and among truly dangerous men, one shot knockouts are not only not rare, but fairly common. They are common because they use the element of surprise. The signs of an impending assault are often times subtle.

If you notice in post #77, I stated that it is possible, but I'm not going to rely on that one shot. In addition, you're talking about a sucker punch. Not every confrontation is a subtle attack. Like I said, its important to be aware of your surroundings.

"Hope" is not a plan of action.

So because someone has a bit of training, they'll always win every fight? One would think that if someone had training, they'd stand a better chance than an untrained person. Therefore, in the context that I was using the word would be, "Yes we have training, and we would hope that it would not fail us, but there is always that chance it will."

Knives are rarely displayed before use. When knives are displayed, it is as a warning or a ward against what is perceived as a threat. Sometimes the knife is used as a tool such as in a mugging, but this isn't the majority of instances.

I guess it would depend on the person using it. In my example, I stated that the person was grabbed from behind and then stabbed, therefore, the knife was not seen.

I'd take the guys eyes if his "push" or "grab" I perceived as merely an opening move in a larger threat.

Yes, that is an option, but there are other options available as well.

Eace person must answer this question for themselves. Do they fear being tried more than being dead or seriously injured? I personally will take my chances with the court. You can hire someone to do the fighting for you in court, you can't hire a professional to defend you in the street (unless you're wealthy, I suppose). They also allow appeals in court. They don't allow appeals on the street.

Thats true. Each person will most likely state something different. You will however, be judged by your actions once you reach court.

What's really going to happen is, my attorney is going to stand in front of the jury and say "My client, a family man with no criminal history, was attacked by a violent criminal with an extensive criminal history of, among other things, robbery and assault. My client felt, at the point at which this brutal monster grabbed my client and demanded money, that his life was in danger. My client has a wife and two children, and was in fear for his life from an imminent threat from this career criminal. My client responded, out of fear, by doing what he felt was necessary to protect himself from this evil, evil man. Is there anyone on this jury who believes that my client should have simply allowed himself to be brutalized by this predatory monster, simply so that this monster can support his crack cocaine addiction? My client was in FEAR FOR HIS LIFE, and responded with the universal right of self-defense."

Yes, your attny. will do just that....do his best to defend you, regardless of you being right, wrong or whatever, because that is what he is getting paid to do!! He will paint the homeless guy out to be the scum of the earth and you the ideal family man. In addition, we should not assume that every person we may get into a confrontation with is a career criminal.

I would also think that they would look at options that you had available to you at the time. Could you have walked away? If yes, then why didnt you?

Again, we can sit here and "what if" this all day. Every situation we face will be different, and everybody will have a different way of looking at it.

Mike

 

[sgtmac_46]

If you notice in post #77, I stated that it is possible, but I'm not going to rely on that one shot. In addition, you're talking about a sucker punch. Not every confrontation is a subtle attack. Like I said, its important to be aware of your surroundings.

Mike

That's not the point. The point was the statement that we shouldn't rely on one punch knockouts. We shouldn't rely on OUR one punch knockout, but to the belief that the other guys one punch knockout will fail is setting us up for a huge surprise.

So because someone has a bit of training, they'll always win every fight? One would think that if someone had training, they'd stand a better chance than an untrained person. Therefore, in the context that I was using the word would be, "Yes we have training, and we would hope that it would not fail us, but there is always that chance it will."
Mike

I said exactly the opposite. Our training is good, but application is better. The belief that our training will pull us out of a situation we allowed to go too far before responding to is a fatal belief. I always assume the person i'm dealing knows how to fight, so I respond accordingly. In a violent confrontation, Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action are my best friend, followed by my training in physical skills. To think that your training will allow you play catchup is a dangerous game, and one I don't intend to play.

Again, we can sit here and "what if" this all day. Every situation we face will be different, and everybody will have a different way of looking at it.

Mike

That's how we prepare "What if" games are an important part of preparation. We in law enforcement and the military use them all the time. It's how we prepare for situations we've not faced yet, but may in the future. Proper Previous Planning Prevents Poor Performance. The situation we deal with may be different, but if it's even in the ballpark of what we've "what if'ed" then we're ahead of the curb. To dismiss "What if" as if it were a waste of time is counter productive. That's how we prepare.

I suppose my training and experience colors my view on things like this. The civilian public in most jurisdictions are required to retreat if possible when confronted by violence, and even if not possible, they are required to only meet violence with equal violence.

Law enforcement is NOT required to retreat from (is, in fact many times required to confront) violence. Further, as a law enforcement officer I'm required to maintain a disparity of force between myself and others. Which means if they use a fist, I use an impact tool such as a baton. Whenever these type of debates come up, I usually argue from that perspective, because I do not retreat. One should always attempt to avoid a violent confrontation (unless it is your job to confront it), and retreat if possible.

 

[MJS]

That's not the point. The point was the statement that we shouldn't rely on one punch knockouts. We shouldn't rely on OUR one punch knockout, but to the belief that the other guys one punch knockout will fail is setting us up for a huge surprise.

Yup, you're right, as that other guy will most likely be attempting to hit us with everything he has, with the hopes of getting a KO on us. So, considering we can't foresee ahead of time what'll happen, maybe I will get KO'd and maybe I won't. Thats the chance one takes when they engage in a fight. However, I based my reply off of what you said here:

They are common because they use the element of surprise. The signs of an impending assault are often times subtle.

This lead me to believe we were talking about a sucker punch, not a face to face confrontation.

I said exactly the opposite. Our training is good, but application is better. The belief that our training will pull us out of a situation we allowed to go too far before responding to is a fatal belief. I always assume the person i'm dealing knows how to fight, so I respond accordingly. In a violent confrontation, Speed, Surprise and Violence of Action are my best friend, followed by my training in physical skills. To think that your training will allow you play catchup is a dangerous game, and one I don't intend to play.

Who said anything about letting it go too far? I stated that one would think our training would give us an advantage, but it may not. I also stated that I too would respond accordingly to the situation that was presented to me at that given moment.

That's how we prepare "What if" games are an important part of preparation. We in law enforcement and the military use them all the time. It's how we prepare for situations we've not faced yet, but may in the future. Proper Previous Planning Prevents Poor Performance. The situation we deal with may be different, but if it's even in the ballpark of what we've "what if'ed" then we're ahead of the curb. To dismiss "What if" as if it were a waste of time is counter productive. That's how we prepare.

Let me clarify. I stated in post #73 the importance of aliveness and realism. This also includes senario training, so please do not think that I'm against this. I stated that every situation will be different and we should not assume anything.

I suppose my training and experience colors my view on things like this. The civilian public in most jurisdictions are required to retreat if possible when confronted by violence, and even if not possible, they are required to only meet violence with equal violence.

Law enforcement is NOT required to retreat from (is, in fact many times required to confront) violence. Further, as a law enforcement officer I'm required to maintain a disparity of force between myself and others. Which means if they use a fist, I use an impact tool such as a baton. Whenever these type of debates come up, I usually argue from that perspective, because I do not retreat. One should always attempt to avoid a violent confrontation (unless it is your job to confront it), and retreat if possible.

Yes, and here we are talking about 2 different things...civilian and LEO. The past few posts, I have been talking on a civilian level. Now when you are off duty, out of uniform, do your options as to what you can/can't do change?

Now, you mention using a baton. In the same situation, would you be able to use a gun?

Mike

 

[safeeagle]

I teach my students that if you come to the point that you need to defend yourself all bets are off. If you can't run away. Anything goes.