How Do You Define "Self Defense?"

[MJS]

Like them or not, you use them. We all do. And of course, statistics are accurate applied to the aggregate, not to the individual. That's why insurance companies can accurately predict their financial exposure to a given liability, but can't tell you if *you* personally will be in a car accident or contract a disease.

However, the fact that they are accurate in the aggregate is a basis point that can be used to reach a logical conclusion. I am not saying it is the only factor; else I'd be arguing with a guy as he stabbed me that "The odds say you should not be doing this." I don't suggest slavishly paying attention to statistics and not the actual situation you find yourself in.

But you use statistics, as I said. You are making an evaluation that includes what you think your chances are in any given situation. Oops, late for an exit ramp on the highway. Too late to go for it across several lanes of traffic? What are the chances a cop sees you? What are the chances someone is in your blind spot? You make your decision and you act on it. But yes, you're using statistics - your own internal statistics.

The main difference is that your internal statistics are based on your experiences and your anecdotal information. Everybody knows bad news comes in threes. Except it doesn't, not statistically. If you decide it's true and order your life by it, well, that's up to you. Now shift that to self-defense. If you decide that every confrontation is liable to end in you being attacked no matter what response you use, so you "might as well go down swinging," (as Rich said) you may find yourself responding to a non-life threatening event in a way that now ensures it is a life-threatening event.

All I'm saying is that the moment you decide to respond with violence, you have moved the confrontation to a new level of risk, one which you may not have needed to do. You may have lowered your personal risk somewhat by 'getting the jump' on the BG. But you have pretty much eliminated the possibility that you're going to emerge unscathed.

I contend that such absolutist logic is not very good logic. Sure, it's your choice, and you may well be right - attack first, attack hard, and don't even bother thinking there might be less risky options and you may come out on top. But you might not be right also.

Self-defense means (to me) that my first responsibility is to myself. I use the information available to me to make a decision when necessary. Pre-determined responses are good for the military, but are not overly conducive to personal survival, IMHO.

Points taken Bill. IMO, though, I wasn't intending my post to sound as if I was using stats. I was thinking about this yesterday, after I logged off. Should've replied when it was still fresh, but I'll do my best to recall what I was thinking.

My point wasn't to point to numbers. I was simply saying, and I believe you confirmed my point in one of your other posts, that stats aren't reliable. You yourself said that each and every situation will be different. So, that being said, that led me to say what I did about the use of stats....that its hard, if not impossible, to determine whether or not someone stood a better chance of survival, if they complied or didn't. There was an article in todays paper about an 18yo male that shot/killed at 74yo male, outside a store. The 18yo was looking for money, told the 74yo to put everything on the ground. The 74yo attempted to grab the gun and was shot. The 18yo also shot him 2 more times. The 18yo is also a suspect in the killing of another store clerk, but hasnt been charged yet.

While training against weapons or empty hand attacks doesnt ensure success, one would hope their odds would be slightly better than someone with no training. Would this man have been shot anyways, if he complied? No idea. Would I still be shot if it were me instead of a 74yo man? No idea.

Let me ask you this, and correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm reading your logic as, when faced with a weapon, comply. Hand over whatever they want. Hopefully, they'll take it, and leave, and it'll be a bad memory. If, after you comply, things are still looking ugly, then fight back.

My theory is to fight back right away, whether the badguy would walk away or not.

Am I correct so far? If so, my question is...if, after we comply, and things still get ugly, its ok to fight back, but we could still end up hurt or dead, why not just fight back from the get go? We're banking on 50/50 odds, that if we comply, we'll walk away unharmed. But if we hand our keys and cash, the guy tells us to get into the truck, now we can fight back???? Why is it suddenly ok then? To play devils advocate, we complied in the beginning, and nothing happened, so why not get into the trunk? Crazy, I know. LOL. For the record, I wouldn't get into the trunk.

Like I said before, there may not be another opportune time to fight back. I'd rather fight back from the beginning. I mean, this is akin to saying, "Ok, this guy is pissed at me for cutting him off and it looks like he's gonna hit me, but I'm gonna wait until the punch is almost to my face, before I do anything." I say screw that. When I see the guys hand draw back, thats when I'm going to do something. If someone is rushing towards me, hands clenched, face red, teeth clenched, I'm not waiting until I can smell what he had for breakfast, I'm going to do something once he's within arms reach. IMO, he wants to do more than just talk at that time, because if he didn't, he'd have been capable of talking to me from 5 ft away.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Let me ask you this, and correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm reading your logic as, when faced with a weapon, comply. Hand over whatever they want. Hopefully, they'll take it, and leave, and it'll be a bad memory. If, after you comply, things are still looking ugly, then fight back.

My theory is to fight back right away, whether the badguy would walk away or not.

No, that's not quite my theory. I'm sorry I'm not explaining it very well.

My theory is this - every situation is different. Having a pre-determined response to a given situation may not be the best way to obey the dictates of self-defense.

In other words, I don't know what I will do when faced with an assailant. I may choose to fight immediately, I may attempt to flee, I may comply. I may also change my mind as the situation changes and change my reaction accordingly.

Am I correct so far? If so, my question is...if, after we comply, and things still get ugly, its ok to fight back, but we could still end up hurt or dead, why not just fight back from the get go? We're banking on 50/50 odds, that if we comply, we'll walk away unharmed. But if we hand our keys and cash, the guy tells us to get into the truck, now we can fight back???? Why is it suddenly ok then? To play devils advocate, we complied in the beginning, and nothing happened, so why not get into the trunk? Crazy, I know. LOL. For the record, I wouldn't get into the trunk.

Two things. First, let's dispense with "OK to fight back." It's always OK to fight back. I do not have a moral compunction against violence, nor do I have any feelings of sympathy for bad guys. My interest is in self-preservation in the kinds of situations we've been describing. My reactions are geared towards that, not towards any desire to not harm others or feelings of moral correctness.

Second, the problem that I have with your scenario is that it essentially describes the confrontation as if it were a door from the "Let's Make a Deal" TV show. In other words, it does not matter what you do - you can pick the door or not pick the door, but it either has a prize behind it or it does not. You don't know what's behind the door, but whatever it is, that's not going to change. In other words, your decisions are based on the idea that the bad guy knows what he is going to do, and nothing will change that. In other words, if he's going to rob and shoot you, he will do that no matter if you comply or if you fight.

If that were the case, your logic would be perfectly sound. After all, there is a 50% change he's going to try to kill you. If you attack first, you may increase your odds of survival. I'd make that choice too, if that's what the situation really was.

But I do not believe that's what the situation really is. I do not believe that most bad guys know if they will or won't attack you no matter what your reactions are. They have their tendencies, of course. One may tend to be violent all the time; another may tend to rob and run. And we do not know one from the other. This makes the situation fluid and dynamic. The possibilities are changing moment-by-moment for as long as the confrontation continues. We can only know a few things with any certainty prior to the confrontation.

One is that all such confrontations are dangerous. So we are at risk no matter what, to some degree. Even an unarmed assailant can injure or kill a person, even accidentally.

Another is that the longer the confrontation goes on, the longer the risk continues. The impetus is to end the confrontation as quickly as possible.

Another is that the overwhelming number of strong-arm or armed robberies do not end in injury or violence. This is straight from the FBI's crime statistics. No, it cannot predict individual behavior, but it is a factor and can be used to consider alternative reactions.

Other than that, there are only our own perceptions and instincts to guide us. These may inform our decision as well. For example, whether or not we can run away - if the assailant is armed with a knife and not a gun, and he's a big fat guy (in my case, fatter than me, eh?), it might be fairly simple to just run away. If he looks athletic, maybe not. If he looks doped up, he might be fairly simple to take down - or just the opposite. If he has accomplices, the situation changes. If he is out in the open and looking scared, again, different circumstances. Does the gun look real? How much of a threat does he really appear to be? Is this a bad neighborhood? Is it day or night? Are there weapons of opportunity laying around? Have their been news stories about robbers in the area, or stories about a bad guy robbing and killing people? Etc, etc. All of these things will inform my decision, as well as an understanding that he probably does not know precisely what he will do if I a) comply, b) run away, c) attack him or d) simply refuse to comply. He may have a preconceived notion - in which case he is indeed the door from "Let's Make a Deal," but seriously, what do you think the chances are of that?

Like I said before, there may not be another opportune time to fight back. I'd rather fight back from the beginning. I mean, this is akin to saying, "Ok, this guy is pissed at me for cutting him off and it looks like he's gonna hit me, but I'm gonna wait until the punch is almost to my face, before I do anything." I say screw that. When I see the guys hand draw back, thats when I'm going to do something. If someone is rushing towards me, hands clenched, face red, teeth clenched, I'm not waiting until I can smell what he had for breakfast, I'm going to do something once he's within arms reach. IMO, he wants to do more than just talk at that time, because if he didn't, he'd have been capable of talking to me from 5 ft away.

You are right that opportunities can pass while taking a different course of action. There is no guarantee in any confrontation that you are going to survive or survive without serious injuries.

However, if you want to use simple black-and-white logic, I can break that part of it down for you.

Using your assumptions, the bad guy either is or is not going to attack me. Let's say he is going to attack me.

If I comply first, he will attack me. I may have lost the best opportunity to defend myself.

If I attack first, he would have attacked me anyway. However, I may have given myself an advantage.

Now, let's look at it the other way. Let's say he was NOT going to attack me. After all, even you do not say it is a guarantee he is going to attack you, right?

If I comply first, he will not attack me. He takes my wallet, I leave, I'm not injured.

If I attack first, now he has to either defend himself or run away. In either case, by attacking him, I am exposing myself to possible injury or death, even if by something stupid like falling on him and puncturing myself on his knife or grabbing his gun badly and it goes off and shoots me. Heck, I've blocked a punch directly into my own face before in the dojo, I can believe that under such conditions, I might very well end up defending myself and injuring myself at the same time. I might also prevail, or force him to run away.

But the point is this. The moment I engage in a violent response, I have ended the highest possibilities of walking away uninjured. In three out of four possible scenarios, I am probably going to get hurt. In one scenario I will not get hurt, and in another, I'm probably going to get hurt even though I would not have if I had complied and walked away.

Given that in my belief, confrontations of this nature are fluid and dynamic, and the person confronting me does not know ahead of time what they will definitely do, I will try to make the choice that I believe favors my own survival above all. I don't think that the bad guy has a set plan, so I'm not going to react like he does; unless circumstances at the time convince me that this is the best option for my survival.

In short, my thoughts are that the old adage that you must assume every confrontation will end in violence is not good advice, for simple mathematical reasons. It demands that you respond with violence to every confrontation, which dramatically increases your chances of being injured or killed. I don't think that there is a simple platitude that describes the best possible response to a confrontation. I think confrontations are far too complex for that, and each one requires you to use your best judgment at that time to make a decision and act on it. I'd say prepare for the possibility of violence, including learning how to fight and win, but if survival is your goal, consider options that might increase the chances of that happening.

 

[MJS]

No, that's not quite my theory. I'm sorry I'm not explaining it very well.

My theory is this - every situation is different. Having a pre-determined response to a given situation may not be the best way to obey the dictates of self-defense.

In other words, I don't know what I will do when faced with an assailant. I may choose to fight immediately, I may attempt to flee, I may comply. I may also change my mind as the situation changes and change my reaction accordingly.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was just confused when I read this in your first post:

"But in fact, most who rob do not kill; they rob and go. Statistics are on my side, and yeah, I've done my homework. Despite what the 'common wisdom' says about armed robbers, the facts are that they mostly do not kill their victims. Of course I am not going to blindly put my faith in what statistics say; I will engage my eyes, ears, and brain; if I *do* think I'm going to be killed anyway after turning over my wallet, then I'm going to choose some other response."

Likewise, many times myself, I've said that I like to assess each situation and decide on a response accordingly. This isn't to mean that I'm not going to do anything, just that I need to figure out when and what.

Two things. First, let's dispense with "OK to fight back." It's always OK to fight back. I do not have a moral compunction against violence, nor do I have any feelings of sympathy for bad guys. My interest is in self-preservation in the kinds of situations we've been describing. My reactions are geared towards that, not towards any desire to not harm others or feelings of moral correctness.

Ok, sounds like we're on the same page.

Second, the problem that I have with your scenario is that it essentially describes the confrontation as if it were a door from the "Let's Make a Deal" TV show. In other words, it does not matter what you do - you can pick the door or not pick the door, but it either has a prize behind it or it does not. You don't know what's behind the door, but whatever it is, that's not going to change. In other words, your decisions are based on the idea that the bad guy knows what he is going to do, and nothing will change that. In other words, if he's going to rob and shoot you, he will do that no matter if you comply or if you fight.

If that were the case, your logic would be perfectly sound. After all, there is a 50% change he's going to try to kill you. If you attack first, you may increase your odds of survival. I'd make that choice too, if that's what the situation really was.

But I do not believe that's what the situation really is. I do not believe that most bad guys know if they will or won't attack you no matter what your reactions are. They have their tendencies, of course. One may tend to be violent all the time; another may tend to rob and run. And we do not know one from the other. This makes the situation fluid and dynamic. The possibilities are changing moment-by-moment for as long as the confrontation continues. We can only know a few things with any certainty prior to the confrontation.

One is that all such confrontations are dangerous. So we are at risk no matter what, to some degree. Even an unarmed assailant can injure or kill a person, even accidentally.

Another is that the longer the confrontation goes on, the longer the risk continues. The impetus is to end the confrontation as quickly as possible.

Another is that the overwhelming number of strong-arm or armed robberies do not end in injury or violence. This is straight from the FBI's crime statistics. No, it cannot predict individual behavior, but it is a factor and can be used to consider alternative reactions.

Other than that, there are only our own perceptions and instincts to guide us. These may inform our decision as well. For example, whether or not we can run away - if the assailant is armed with a knife and not a gun, and he's a big fat guy (in my case, fatter than me, eh?), it might be fairly simple to just run away. If he looks athletic, maybe not. If he looks doped up, he might be fairly simple to take down - or just the opposite. If he has accomplices, the situation changes. If he is out in the open and looking scared, again, different circumstances. Does the gun look real? How much of a threat does he really appear to be? Is this a bad neighborhood? Is it day or night? Are there weapons of opportunity laying around? Have their been news stories about robbers in the area, or stories about a bad guy robbing and killing people? Etc, etc. All of these things will inform my decision, as well as an understanding that he probably does not know precisely what he will do if I a) comply, b) run away, c) attack him or d) simply refuse to comply. He may have a preconceived notion - in which case he is indeed the door from "Let's Make a Deal," but seriously, what do you think the chances are of that?

When I was working in Corrections, any time I interacted with an inmate 1 on 1 or a group of them, no matter if they were in there for a petty drug offense or looking at life for murder, I never assumed, no matter how 'nice' they 'appeared' to be, that they wouldn't attempt to do something to me, have a weapon, looking to set me up somehow, etc. Hell, I had one guy tell me that he wouldn't think twice about taking a swing at me. Now, this guy never gave me a hard time, and overall, was generally nice to me. Yet given that he had nothing to lose, so to speak, even if he was compelled to hit me, whats the worst that gonna happen? Big deal, he loses his phone privledges for a week, so? He'll get 'em back. Likewise, I think it'd be foolish for an LEO to assume that everyone on a traffic stop will comply. I think we've seen enough video footage to say otherwise.

My point is....yes, I admit, its very possible the 16yo kid looking to score some quick $$ for some dope, will take my cash and run, using the knife or gun, be it real or fake, for nothing than intimidation, and take off running. I dont read minds, so no, I dont know what he'll do. Take my stuff and run, take it and shoot me in the leg, take it, see that he only got $10 and kill me, kill me for the fun of it, whatever.

You yourself, said that you may choose from a number of responses. This is fine of course...thats your choice. When I say assess the situation, thats exactly what I'm doing....assessing, to figure out the best response. Hmm..ok, this guy is a skinny *** twig, who I could probably break in 2, this guy is built like Arnold times 10, wait, this guy has a knife to my back, and his buddy has a gun.

All that said, unless the odds appear to be strongly against me, I'm going to assume the worst, and fight back, when the best opportunity presents itself. His intent may say otherwise, afterall I dont know what he's thinking. Maybe its a bb gun and he's looking for some drug cash..quick.

As for the FBI stats....I still dont put faith in them. I can point to a number of recent incidents that would prove otherwise.

You are right that opportunities can pass while taking a different course of action. There is no guarantee in any confrontation that you are going to survive or survive without serious injuries.

However, if you want to use simple black-and-white logic, I can break that part of it down for you.

Using your assumptions, the bad guy either is or is not going to attack me. Let's say he is going to attack me.

If I comply first, he will attack me. I may have lost the best opportunity to defend myself.

If I attack first, he would have attacked me anyway. However, I may have given myself an advantage.

Now, let's look at it the other way. Let's say he was NOT going to attack me. After all, even you do not say it is a guarantee he is going to attack you, right?

If I comply first, he will not attack me. He takes my wallet, I leave, I'm not injured.

If I attack first, now he has to either defend himself or run away. In either case, by attacking him, I am exposing myself to possible injury or death, even if by something stupid like falling on him and puncturing myself on his knife or grabbing his gun badly and it goes off and shoots me. Heck, I've blocked a punch directly into my own face before in the dojo, I can believe that under such conditions, I might very well end up defending myself and injuring myself at the same time. I might also prevail, or force him to run away.

But the point is this. The moment I engage in a violent response, I have ended the highest possibilities of walking away uninjured. In three out of four possible scenarios, I am probably going to get hurt. In one scenario I will not get hurt, and in another, I'm probably going to get hurt even though I would not have if I had complied and walked away.

Given that in my belief, confrontations of this nature are fluid and dynamic, and the person confronting me does not know ahead of time what they will definitely do, I will try to make the choice that I believe favors my own survival above all. I don't think that the bad guy has a set plan, so I'm not going to react like he does; unless circumstances at the time convince me that this is the best option for my survival.

In short, my thoughts are that the old adage that you must assume every confrontation will end in violence is not good advice, for simple mathematical reasons. It demands that you respond with violence to every confrontation, which dramatically increases your chances of being injured or killed. I don't think that there is a simple platitude that describes the best possible response to a confrontation. I think confrontations are far too complex for that, and each one requires you to use your best judgment at that time to make a decision and act on it. I'd say prepare for the possibility of violence, including learning how to fight and win, but if survival is your goal, consider options that might increase the chances of that happening.

As I've said before, I've talked my way out of many confrontations, which had the potential to get ugly. I'm not ashamed of that at all. No, it wasn't a blow to my ego Bill. I wasn't upset with myself because I didn't have to chance to open a can of whoop ***. But, until the moment the other guy walked away, yes, I was thinking, "Yup, this may take a turn for the worse." Likewise, I fully understand and accept the fact that I may get hurt or worse. In the end Bill, for the reasons I've listed before, I've reduced alot of 'bad' happening to me, for the simple fact that I keep to myself, avoid potential bad areas, ie: bars, clubs, bad section of town, dont hang out with people who're bad or have the potential to bring trouble to themselves, and I'm caught in the crossfire. Hard as it is sometimes, I do my best to keep my roadrage in check. If I need to use the ATM, I go during the day and 9 times out of 10, use the drive up. I do my best to be aware of whats going on around me. Pull into a parking lot/garage, yes, I'm looking around to see whats going on around me. Lock the car doors when I'm inside, keep ample distance between me and the car in front of me. So yes, already, I've cut down on the potential risk of bad things.

IMO, I'd rather go in guarded, and gradually ease back, rather than go in totally relaxed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

IMO, I'd rather go in guarded, and gradually ease back, rather than go in totally relaxed.

I actually think our responses are pretty much similar in the end - colored by our perceptions and experiences. I've never worked in corrections, but I am going to hazard a guess that people in prison, especially those doing life, have a lot fewer reasons for refraining from violence than people on the street. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, just that your experiences with bad guys are from the ones who are locked up and have a mindset and set of responses that may be different from what those 'on the street' might do - even the same guys might behave differently on the outside when they do have (as you put it) 'something to lose'.

I actually thought you were saying that if you were confronted, you would assume that the assailant was going to try to harm you and therefore you would attack immediately in all situations. My point was only that if your goal is self-defense (to include non-injury), then that might not be the best response to ALL such situations. It sounds after our discussion as though you'd go through the same kind of mental checklist I would. Perhaps our end-decisions would come out slightly different based on our life experiences, but the process would be the same. Am I right?

This has always been my 'gold standard' for self-defense. In my opinion, an ideal response which shows precisely the kind of threat evaluation that is geared to self-preservation:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/

"While John Lovell was finishing up his sandwich around 11:15 p.m. last Wednesday, two masked men armed with guns barged into the restaurant, according to a statement from the Plantation police. After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said."

There is more to the story... When the robbers asked Lovell for his wallet, he complied. He was armed the entire time; he could have jumped up and started shooting as soon as they entered. But he evaluated his options and decided to comply as the best self-defense strategy available to him at that time. It was only when the robbers started herding the customers into a back room that he changed his strategy, drew his weapon, and opened fire.

Could he have been more effective if he had opened fire immediately instead of initially complying with the robbers? Maybe. We don't know.

Could he have been killed by waiting too long to engage them? Definitely. But in this case, he did not get killed.

Could the robbers merely have intended to lock the customers and employees into the back room and escape without harming them? Also a possibility, but the Major thought that the threat level had changed, and he changed his response accordingly.

I think the Major exemplifies the kind of thinking that makes a great deal of sense if one is talking about 'self-defense' and not 'defending the community' or 'standing up for what's right' or any number of other things that, while important, are not 'self-defense'. Had the robbers not tried to herd the customers into the back room, he would have lost his wallet and not drawn his weapon. It was a calculated risk - he apparently felt that the least risk to his own life was in complying - at least until the threat level changed.

That, to me, is really classic tactically-sound self-defense thinking and actions. The man was no coward, nor did he grovel, beg, or plead for his life (as many on MT have stated in the past if one does not instantly respond by shooting up the bad guys). He chose the response that he felt was the lowest threat, and when the threat changed, his response changed also. Situations like this are fluid and dynamic. Responses can be tailored to the situation at hand. There are no guarantees that his tactics would have worked - he might have been shot dead. But it is a calculated risk. I agree with his thinking.

 

[MJS]

Sorry, been busy, but I did want to reply.

I actually think our responses are pretty much similar in the end - colored by our perceptions and experiences. I've never worked in corrections, but I am going to hazard a guess that people in prison, especially those doing life, have a lot fewer reasons for refraining from violence than people on the street. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, just that your experiences with bad guys are from the ones who are locked up and have a mindset and set of responses that may be different from what those 'on the street' might do - even the same guys might behave differently on the outside when they do have (as you put it) 'something to lose'.

I agree.

I actually thought you were saying that if you were confronted, you would assume that the assailant was going to try to harm you and therefore you would attack immediately in all situations. My point was only that if your goal is self-defense (to include non-injury), then that might not be the best response to ALL such situations. It sounds after our discussion as though you'd go through the same kind of mental checklist I would. Perhaps our end-decisions would come out slightly different based on our life experiences, but the process would be the same. Am I right?

This has always been my 'gold standard' for self-defense. In my opinion, an ideal response which shows precisely the kind of threat evaluation that is geared to self-preservation:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/marine_subway_robbery_070702/

"While John Lovell was finishing up his sandwich around 11:15 p.m. last Wednesday, two masked men armed with guns barged into the restaurant, according to a statement from the Plantation police. After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said."

There is more to the story... When the robbers asked Lovell for his wallet, he complied. He was armed the entire time; he could have jumped up and started shooting as soon as they entered. But he evaluated his options and decided to comply as the best self-defense strategy available to him at that time. It was only when the robbers started herding the customers into a back room that he changed his strategy, drew his weapon, and opened fire.

Could he have been more effective if he had opened fire immediately instead of initially complying with the robbers? Maybe. We don't know.

Could he have been killed by waiting too long to engage them? Definitely. But in this case, he did not get killed.

Could the robbers merely have intended to lock the customers and employees into the back room and escape without harming them? Also a possibility, but the Major thought that the threat level had changed, and he changed his response accordingly.

I think the Major exemplifies the kind of thinking that makes a great deal of sense if one is talking about 'self-defense' and not 'defending the community' or 'standing up for what's right' or any number of other things that, while important, are not 'self-defense'. Had the robbers not tried to herd the customers into the back room, he would have lost his wallet and not drawn his weapon. It was a calculated risk - he apparently felt that the least risk to his own life was in complying - at least until the threat level changed.

That, to me, is really classic tactically-sound self-defense thinking and actions. The man was no coward, nor did he grovel, beg, or plead for his life (as many on MT have stated in the past if one does not instantly respond by shooting up the bad guys). He chose the response that he felt was the lowest threat, and when the threat changed, his response changed also. Situations like this are fluid and dynamic. Responses can be tailored to the situation at hand. There are no guarantees that his tactics would have worked - he might have been shot dead. But it is a calculated risk. I agree with his thinking.

Did he comply though? I mean, reading the article, it doesn't say, but I suppose it could be read that way. This part:

"After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said.
As the two tried to force Lovell into the ladies’ room where he thought he would be killed, the former Marine reached behind his back to grab his .45-caliber handgun, which he fired seven times at the two men, according to the police statement."

So, yes, he could've handed it over and then they were going to force him into the bathroom or did he not comply, and then they forced him in. Either way, I'm glad that all turned out well for the man.

As for what I said earlier....yes, when asked for my keys, car, cash, I'd hand it over, and if/when the opportunity presented itself, would most likely attempt to fight back. My point was simply to say that during that moment, he's expecting to see me move, so my hope would be to mask my compliance with a defense.

I did want to post this recent article:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-armed-robbery-0619-20110618,0,2084345.story

HARTFORD—
Five people were arrested on Church Street Saturday morning after police said they robbed eight men at gunpoint in a parking lot.
Police Sgt. Paul Cicero said the victims were walking back to their cars — parked in a parking lot near the intersection of Ann Street and Chapel Street North in the downtown area — when they were approached by five people. One of the suspects produced a 9mm handgun, Cicero said.

The suspects began to assault the victims, even kicking one of them in the face, Officer Jill Kidik said. Other victims were hit and kicked by the suspects, she said.

Police arrested Luis Bruno, 21, Kendall Camby, 21, Jose Rodriguez, 28, Dominique Evans, 24, and Lamel Brooks, 22, all of Hartford. The five face robbery and weapons charges, though police did not release the exact charges for each of them. The arrests occurred shortly before 3 a.m., authorities said.
Police were able to recover the victims' belongings, including wallets, cell phones, jewelry and cash.

I wasn't there, so I can only go on what the article says, but this reads to me, that once the badguys confronted the victims, they immediately began assaulting them. Did they victims comply initially and were then assaulted? Were they assaulted right off the bat? Dont know.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did he comply though? I mean, reading the article, it doesn't say, but I suppose it could be read that way. This part:

"After taking money from the register, the two men turned to Lovell and demanded his wallet, police said.
As the two tried to force Lovell into the ladies’ room where he thought he would be killed, the former Marine reached behind his back to grab his .45-caliber handgun, which he fired seven times at the two men, according to the police statement."

So, yes, he could've handed it over and then they were going to force him into the bathroom or did he not comply, and then they forced him in. Either way, I'm glad that all turned out well for the man.

Yes, he handed it over. It was not in that story but was in others. He was interviewed at one point - I had the link and even posted it on MT once, but I can't find it now.

As for what I said earlier....yes, when asked for my keys, car, cash, I'd hand it over, and if/when the opportunity presented itself, would most likely attempt to fight back. My point was simply to say that during that moment, he's expecting to see me move, so my hope would be to mask my compliance with a defense.

I did want to post this recent article:
http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-hartford-armed-robbery-0619-20110618,0,2084345.story

I wasn't there, so I can only go on what the article says, but this reads to me, that once the badguys confronted the victims, they immediately began assaulting them. Did they victims comply initially and were then assaulted? Were they assaulted right off the bat? Dont know.

I agree, and I understand. But I track news stories with the keywords "victim fought back." I don't post them all - there are a lot of them. In some of them, victims fight back and win. In others, they lose. In some of them, they were the most recent victim of a BG or gang of BG's (suspected) of other recent robberies, but they fought back and were the first ones killed/injured - others apparently escaped unharmed up to that point. Again, nothing is carved in stone; even a BG who has not injured or killed before can suddenly decide to do it for little or no reason, so you can't guarantee that not fighting back will save you from being injured or killed. All I can say is that once you start to fight back, you pretty much eliminate the option where you walked away unhurt. That's probably not going to happen now, unless you are that lucky or that good. I've never been in a fight yet where I didn't get mussed up some, although I have never been robbed.

 

[chinto]

to use the KISS principle, Staying alive in a dangerous situation...

Means... any thing necessary! get out before its fully a situation that is a treat, defusing it if you can.. if not fight, and cripple or kill if needed to survive.... but self defense is doing what must be done to protect yourself from harm.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Bill & MJS: Between you guys you've pretty comprehensively explored 2 perceptions of the same idea so thank you Made for quite an interesting read!

For myself personally, Self Defence as said is doing whatever it takes to get home safe. That's the way we train it at our school as well. It involves picking up on pre fight indicators (physical, verbal, environmental), using awareness to not be in the situation in the first place, verbal deescalation (both passive and agressive to match the threat), physical de-escalation, pre emptive striking, escape options and understanding that MA and SD are 2 very very different things to name the key components as I understand it so far. Stevebjj put it quite well with his post

Self defense is everything you do to avoid physical altercation. If you're fighting with someone, you have fundamentally failed at self defense.

However if you do need to fight, I believe a strong understanding of local laws including use of force, duty of retreat etc can only be a good thing and while it may not be the explicit job of the MA/SD school to teach this aspect of it, IMO such training where possible should be introduced at least at a base level to all students. While it may not guarantee that as a MAist you will never get mugged, I think it'd go a long way in keeping MAists out of trouble themselves. In our school, we refer to the aftermath of confrontation as "The Second Wave"

 

[MJS]

Yes, he handed it over. It was not in that story but was in others. He was interviewed at one point - I had the link and even posted it on MT once, but I can't find it now.

No problem with the link. I'll take your word on it.

I agree, and I understand. But I track news stories with the keywords "victim fought back." I don't post them all - there are a lot of them. In some of them, victims fight back and win. In others, they lose. In some of them, they were the most recent victim of a BG or gang of BG's (suspected) of other recent robberies, but they fought back and were the first ones killed/injured - others apparently escaped unharmed up to that point. Again, nothing is carved in stone; even a BG who has not injured or killed before can suddenly decide to do it for little or no reason, so you can't guarantee that not fighting back will save you from being injured or killed. All I can say is that once you start to fight back, you pretty much eliminate the option where you walked away unhurt. That's probably not going to happen now, unless you are that lucky or that good. I've never been in a fight yet where I didn't get mussed up some, although I have never been robbed.

Points taken. So, in a nutshell....the better route is to: assess each situation on a seperate basis. Comply. If he BG walks away, chalk it up to a loss, call the cops, give a good description, and hope that one day, you can testify in court and see this guy get locked up. If you comply and things get worse, such as with the Marine, fight back. Either way, whatever you do, be prepared, if you do fight, to get hurt or worse.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Points taken. So, in a nutshell....the better route is to: assess each situation on a seperate basis. Comply. If he BG walks away, chalk it up to a loss, call the cops, give a good description, and hope that one day, you can testify in court and see this guy get locked up. If you comply and things get worse, such as with the Marine, fight back. Either way, whatever you do, be prepared, if you do fight, to get hurt or worse.

I also agree with you - if your assessment of the situation makes you believe you're about to get hurt no matter what you do, strike first, strike hard, and don't stop striking until the threat has passed!

I have been told by people who apparently know that if you get into a fight with a person armed with a knife, accept it as a given that you are going to get cut. That seems like a good concept in general - if you fight, you are going to get hurt. I can accept that.

I also like Supra Vijai's comments about knowing the laws regarding self-defense where you live. As you and I both know, if the police become involved in a situation where someone is injured and more so if someone dies, even if you used good sense and complied with the law and avoid prosecution, your life is not going to be the same as it was before the incident. When someone dies and the police show up, nobody walks away without their life being much more complicated, whether they are in the right or in the wrong legally.

 

[Indie12]

As a spin off to my "How do you define martial arts?" thread in the GMA section, the mention of SD came up in that thread, so rather than side track it, I thought I'd start a new thread.

So, how do you define self defense?

Well, first of all

1) Martial Arts does include Self Defense, so technically the definition is the same.

2) I personally dislike the term "Self Defense" rather I go with 'Defensive Tactics'. Self Defense implies your only defending yourself, Defensive Tactics can imply defending either yourself, a loved one, a friend, a stranger, or a public member.

Haven't we already had this discussion?

 

[Mark Jordan]

Self- defense is avoiding getting into a fight but if retreat or escape is not possible then it is protecting oneself/family/property by using a reasonable force to repel the attack.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Martial Arts does include Self Defense, so technically the definition is the same.

Could you please elaborate? A lot of it would have to do with the art studied as well wouldn't it? For example, I train Ninjutsu and learn techniques from each of the main schools that are taught (Gyokko, Koto, Togakure etc). While all of these techniques COULD be used in self defence, without some adaptation and context they wouldn't be the best way to go in a street fight IMO. As my instructor explained it, you don't expect a street predator to bow in, assume posture and attack in a coherent preset pattern. Street violence is chaotic to say the least. Not to mention that in a lot of very real ways the lessons from SD classes and MA ones are very different and each with it's own respective pros and cons.

 

[Balrog]

As my instructor explained it, you don't expect a street predator to bow in, assume posture and attack in a coherent preset pattern.

True. However, one-steps like that have a very valid usage. They teach the beginning concepts of timing, distancing and control, and serve as a transition to free-sparring. And there are times in a sparring class when I will simply cut loose, charge the student I'm sparring with while yelling at the top of my lungs and swinging wildly with both hands. It raises their stress level greatly and if they don't "feed me a foot", there's a problem.

 

[Supra Vijai]

True. However, one-steps like that have a very valid usage. They teach the beginning concepts of timing, distancing and control, and serve as a transition to free-sparring. And there are times in a sparring class when I will simply cut loose, charge the student I'm sparring with while yelling at the top of my lungs and swinging wildly with both hands. It raises their stress level greatly and if they don't "feed me a foot", there's a problem.

Oh I completely agree! I love the traditional side of training most personally. While I see the definite need for and validity of the street/self defence stuff, the traditional kata and exercises are where I am drawn to the most. My post was simply in reply to a previous comment by Indie12 that MA and SD were the same thing. I don't believe they are the same but rather complement each other brilliantly.

Pressure testing and adrenaline based stress response is something we go through a fair bit as well especially as you advance through the ranks. For instance we had a very special class tonight where we explored a different approach to a school we have been studying for the past 6 months. During one of the techniques as I was acting as Tori for Sensei, he mentioned adding in a kiai with each strike from Uke and demonstrated. It was quite controlled and deliberate... and I completely forgot what I was meant to do and focused on just getting back out of the way of the sword cut coming in.

 

[seasoned]

Re: How Do You Define "Self Defense?"

Someone taking you where you don't want to go, and you having the ability to stop them.