If it's not close quarters it's not self defense?

[Joab]

The FIRST question I'd ask these good people is what is my responsibility if the attacker is using a long contact weapon ... like a 6 or 7 foot stick ... or, worse, a distance weapon like a gun? What if they're throwing rocks at me or other innocents?

I suppose if your really break down my FIRST question, it's really three questions ... all having to do with distance and an escalating threat. Seems to me they haven't thought about it.

Best Wishes,

Explorer

This presupposes that the attack is hand to hand, unarmed attack, of course it wouldn't apply if a weapon was being used.

 

[Joab]

I am not now a good runner, nor have I ever been. That was a major motivation in my learning self defense to begin with. If my attacker is young and fit, that is all the more reason to make sure they're not getting up before I break away and run.

You make a valid point. I'm not a very good runner either, this might not be the best option for me either.

 

[Joab]

Some good points by people here. There are other phases to combat other than the physcal. Keep in mind, that these people are trying to market their product, so of course they're going to say whatever they can, to make the buyer think and feel a certain way.

What about the before phase? As I said, that is where the SD really begins. It begins before someone even says anything to you, as I said earlier. If I see something, if I get that uneasy feeling, if I can avoid something before it happens, I've defended myself.

Sounds to me, like the attackproof folks are doing what many others do....trying to market something as the end all, be all of SD. Hey, maybe their product is good, I dont know, nor do I care, as I don't intend on buying anything. I'm more than happy with what I already train in. I doubt they're going to be telling me anything a) I dont already know or b) that I couldn't learn from my current teachers.

I appreciate your comments, far more than many of the others I read in this thread. This was starting to look more like a bullshido thread quite frankly. Perhaps the unkind words that "attack proof" folks have regarding traditional/classical systems would make them fair game, words I would not use. I have trained in classical/ traditional systems as well as more RBSD systems like "Attack proof" and have gotten something out of all of them. Than again, I never really advanced all that far in any of them, learning the basics of all, not really even intermediate, more of a dabbler, so what do I know? I threw the question out regarding their comment on close quarter or close combat self defense precisely because I know I really don't know anything compared to a lot of you. I wanted to weigh varying views and think it through myself. And I am certainly not going to allow myself to be in the position of defending "Attack proof" as I have never even taken one class in it. I have liked what I read in a book and watched on a video, others have not. I would like to take a class in it.

My next study will likely be tai chi, something that is incorporated in the "Attack proof" system. I think it will help me relax, which has always been my biggest problem learning the martial arts, I have an anxiety disorder which includes muscle tension, it is difficult to relax when your muscles are tense.

Again, thanks for your kind manner in your post.

 

[Joab]

Read their book, was staggeringly unimpressed.

Thanks for reading the book, that says something for you, that you were willing to read the book. No system is for everyone.

 

[Joab]

I knew there was a reason I didn't like guns. They aren't "close quarters" enough.

It's not Real Self Defense(tm) unless you're putting yourself in as much danger as possible.

I think their idea is it is a good idea to flee if the opportunity presents itself. Since the founder, John Perkins, was a New York City Police officer working a beat, and later a forensics detective, he would never advocate running from someone who is just going to shoot you in the back.

 

[Chris Parker]

Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area.

Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.

Frankly, Joab, yes you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't have brought it here, and would have probably laughed it off the way others here (myself included) have. But to be more balanced, I went back to the site and went through pretty much everything there, including all the videos they have on there. And to say that this particular system would be below recommendation is an understatement.

I am never fond of anyone coming up with their own (Western) system and naming them in an Asian fashion, but when they can't even do that properly I have major concerns for the rest of the background and story presented. Here we have Ki Chuan Do, the Way of the Spirit Fist. Let's see... Ki (Japanese) Chuan (Chinese) Do (Japanese or Korean). And although that may be seen as nothing to do with the effectiveness of ineffectiveness of the system, it doesn't bode well for this being any more than someone's fantasy. And the rest of the videos pretty much confirmed that.

For a supposedly "reality" combat system (with techniques proven on the battlefield? Really? The second in command is supposedly an ex-Marine, I'd suggest he got into this system after he returned, but that's my assumption...) there is a great lack of realistic training. And that's supposed to be one of their big selling points.

Attacks are uncommited and not followed through. There is a highly unrealistic responce of rolling around on the ground, there is no-one on the entire series of videos who seem to have any understanding or ability to generate power, most techniques are rather ineffective as well as being overkill, and so on. Where your original post seems to be coming from is what they are refering to as their "Contact Flow" drill... which seems to be an unfocused form of Wing Chun's sticky hands drill. The clip to that is not particularly impressive.

I don't have the time to go through all of them, but I will provide a link for anyone wanting to make up their own minds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcBOoYWpB5E&feature=player_embedded

Now you're going to be taking Taiji because these guys include it in their system? No offense to Taiji (quite like the art myself), but how exactly do you see that helping you?

My honest advice to you is simple. Forget these supposed reality gurus, really anyone that tells you that they are the "only, most real, true" or some other such comment, all they are doing is trying to scare you into thinking they can help. Unsubscribe from their mailing list. Don't answer any more 1 page ads from "Military Special Forces Secret Teachers Showing You What The Military Doesn't Want You To Know!!!"

Then look around your area. Find a local school. Find a teacher you can respect. Doesn't matter what the system is, whether they claim to be "reality" or not, but make sure they are not preying on fear like these guys and your former teacher (this is the American Combato teacher again? For someone you apparently only trained with for a few months years ago, he certainly made an impression on you...). Then train. And train. And train some more. Get out of this scared mindset that leaves you open to these things. You really need to. Otherwise we'll be here discussing the same thing again.

 

[repz]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

Makes sense to me too. Self Defense to me starts with running away. Its not hard to figure out something bad is going to happen, and I am not embrassed to say I ran, even if I was wrong that they were planning to jump me, or shoot me. I am not worried about losing face in an area I will never return to, or dont know anyone there. I ususally back away rasing my voice why are they trying to bring me over there when theres like five of them, that I am not stupid. If they get satisfaction for a few hours that they scared me away because they threatened to use metal against flesh and bone, or had to use more bodies to pose a threat, then good for them.

I am not such a believer in someone shooting you in the back. They would have shot you as you approached. Unless its gangster warfare or some other big grudge (which means you will probably get shot anyway), they are either trying to rob you, or trying to scare you away, to shot someone when he runs away trying not to get engaged in this case seems odd (though not impossible), unless they are crazy or confused you with someone. It would be best to run toward park cars and put objects in between, these idiots dont go to the range and are never usually trained. Several of my family members have died, and its because they didnt run away. My cousin almost had his arms chopped off because he wanted to square away with gang members who were holding machetes, considering its his neigborhood, he refused to run away and lose face.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

Some US states have a 'duty to retreat' as part of their laws on self-defense. Many have a 'stand your ground' clause instead. State and local laws differ. It is a good idea to know what the laws on self-defense are in your area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Some American jurisdictions require that a person retreat from an attack, and allow the use of deadly force in self defense only when retreat is not possible or when retreat poses a danger to the person under attack. The duty to retreat is not universal, however. For example, police officers are not required to retreat when acting in the line of duty. Similarly, some courts have found no duty to retreat exists when victim is assaulted in a place where the victim has a right to be, such as within one's own home. State v. Allery, 101 Wash.2d 591, 682 P.2d 312 (1984). The Model Penal Code § 3.04(2)(b)(ii) suggests statutory language that also recognizes an exception to the usual duty to retreat when the victim of the attack is in his or her own dwelling or place of work.
Many states employ "stand your ground" laws that do not require an individual to retreat and allow one to match force for force, deadly force for deadly force. Such as with the Washington State Supreme Court affirming state laws by ruling "that there is no duty to retreat when a person is assaulted in a place where he or she has a right to be."[1][2]

Many will offer advice about what to do in order to avoid civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution. Many will puff up their chests and declare that they'll kill anyone who so much as steps into their path as they progress down the street. None of them will pay your legal costs or serve your jail time (and neither will I), so my advice is to FIND OUT WHAT THE LAW IS where you live and then DO THAT.

 

[MJS]

Well, I don't really. I don't particularly like the way they market themselves. I don't like the name "attack proof" as no system can make you attack proof. But they are a business trying to make a living and it is good marketing to some I suppose. I began looking into "Attack Proof" because a former teacher of mine endorsed the sytem, something he very rarely does, and invited them into his combat martial arts federation, something he also almost never does. When I discovered that, I read their first book and watched their first video. I was very impressed by it. It uses the same striking techniques of Fairbairn/Applegate/Sykes that I learned from another system. I would like to take classes in it but none are offered in my area.

Than again what do I know? Not a lot compared to many of you. I'm certainly not going to try to sell you on a system that I haven't taken one class from. And really it is only by taking classes in a system that you can really know if it is for you or not.

I know you addressed this to Chris, and he's already answered the post, but I wanted to comment. The part that caught my eye in this post, was when you spoke of the way the strikes are done. Now, if we look at pretty much any style, theres a very good chance we'll see strikes that're similar. The difference though, is usually in application. We could most likely take any style, strip things down to the barebones basics and apply those punches and kicks in the same fashion that the above mentioned people (Fairbairn, Applegate) do.

I appreciate your comments, far more than many of the others I read in this thread. This was starting to look more like a bullshido thread quite frankly. Perhaps the unkind words that "attack proof" folks have regarding traditional/classical systems would make them fair game, words I would not use. I have trained in classical/ traditional systems as well as more RBSD systems like "Attack proof" and have gotten something out of all of them. Than again, I never really advanced all that far in any of them, learning the basics of all, not really even intermediate, more of a dabbler, so what do I know? I threw the question out regarding their comment on close quarter or close combat self defense precisely because I know I really don't know anything compared to a lot of you. I wanted to weigh varying views and think it through myself. And I am certainly not going to allow myself to be in the position of defending "Attack proof" as I have never even taken one class in it. I have liked what I read in a book and watched on a video, others have not. I would like to take a class in it.

I'm glad I could offer some assistance. As for the wording that they use...like I said, they're marketing something. Its no different than 2 fast food places would market their products. How many times do we see 1 burger joint compare their burger to that of a competitor? They make it sound like the other place stinks, the meat isn't nearly as good, its a plain Jane burger, compared to theirs. Same thing with the martial arts IMO.

My next study will likely be tai chi, something that is incorporated in the "Attack proof" system. I think it will help me relax, which has always been my biggest problem learning the martial arts, I have an anxiety disorder which includes muscle tension, it is difficult to relax when your muscles are tense.

I know in past threads you were looking for advice on a place to train. How has your search been going? Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as there is no ill intent behind my words here. I'm simply offering another observation. IMHO, I think that you really like the martial arts. You seem like you enjoy all of the benefits that the arts offer. However, it seems to me that you're looking for the 1 art out there, that will address every single possible solution. The 1 art that gives the appearance that it has a magical secret. I wish I knew what that art was, because I'd be training in it. Yes, there're arts, heck, pretty much every art addresses punching, kicking, grappling, weapons, etc., but, they don't have all the answers.

My advice would be this: Set aside some quiet time, where you can sit down, and write out everything that you want out of the arts. Once you have that list, seek out schools in your area or surrounding areas that either meet exactly what you're looking for, or those that come close. This may require some travel, there may not be any schools in your area that meet your needs, I dont know, only you know that. If it means going to 2 different schools, then so be it. If it means driving 2 hrs. one way, then so be it. If its something you want that bad, then go for it. But its seems to me anyway, again, this is only an observation, that you dabble here, dabble there, get disheartened, dabble more, and so on. Its a revolving door.

As I said, the above is simply my advice. You can take it, not take it, take part of it, whatever you'd like. As I said, it seems to me that you enjoy training, but you're having a hard time finding things. I wish you well in your search.

Again, thanks for your kind manner in your post.

You're welcome.

 

[frank raud]

I think their idea is it is a good idea to flee if the opportunity presents itself. Since the founder, John Perkins, was a New York City Police officer working a beat, and later a forensics detective, he would never advocate running from someone who is just going to shoot you in the back.

I would think John Perkins not advocating running might have something to do with his size.

 

[frank raud]

Thanks for reading the book, that says something for you, that you were willing to read the book. No system is for everyone.

I have read the book, seen a video and met John Perkins at a WWII combatives seminar in NJ. Not impressed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

How close do you have to be if they're shooting at you? Range is kind of subjective.

 

[Joab]

Frankly, Joab, yes you do.

Chris, you just called me a liar. In context, by writing the above you wrote that when I wrote wasn't impressed with their advertising I was in fact lying. There is no point in dialoguing with a self important, arrogant blowhard like you who would likely get his butt thoroughly kicked by any black belt in Attack proof! You sir, can go jump in the nearest lake.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. I could just RTM this post, which I probably should, or I can clarify. This will be a short reply.

No, I didn't actually call you a liar. I said that your actions go against your statements, which is calling you incongruent. That is a very common thing, though, as most people are unaware of what they are actually doing/saying/feeling/thinking on a real level at any point. It's the same as someone saying "Oh, I'd do this in this situation" and when it comes to it, they don't do anything of the kind. You said you didn't put any stock in these guys, but your actions and defence of them says you do. That's all. This emotional responce simply verifies it.

As to whether or not I would get my butt kicked, for one thing I doubt it, but for another that's kinda beside the point. We are discussing the ideas put forward by them (as presented first by yourself, then by the actual group when you supplied their website details). And you may have noticed that pretty much anyone here with any experience reacted the same way I did.

You seem to have had a problem with me since I tried to help you by pointing out a number of things in your posts and posting habits that you were most likely unaware of (again, this type of internal/external incongruency is rather common). I suggest you take a deep breath, relax, and try to read anything I post without that emotional filter you put on whenever you see my name.

And don't try such an outburst again, they're rather frowned upon here.

 

[Joab]

I know you addressed this to Chris, and he's already answered the post, but I wanted to comment. The part that caught my eye in this post, was when you spoke of the way the strikes are done. Now, if we look at pretty much any style, theres a very good chance we'll see strikes that're similar. The difference though, is usually in application. We could most likely take any style, strip things down to the barebones basics and apply those punches and kicks in the same fashion that the above mentioned people (Fairbairn, Applegate) do.

Actually, except for American Combato, the strikes have been radically different in all of the other styles I have studied (Tae-Kwon-Do, Wing Chun, Krav Maga. All those styles used clenched fist blows, I prefer open hand for the most part.



I know in past threads you were looking for advice on a place to train. How has your search been going?
I plan to take tai chi soon

Please don't take offense to what I'm about to say, as there is no ill intent behind my words here. I'm simply offering another observation. IMHO, I think that you really like the martial arts. You seem like you enjoy all of the benefits that the arts offer. However, it seems to me that you're looking for the 1 art out there, that will address every single possible solution. The 1 art that gives the appearance that it has a magical secret. I wish I knew what that art was, because I'd be training in it. Yes, there're arts, heck, pretty much every art addresses punching, kicking, grappling, weapons, etc., but, they don't have all the answers.

Your right. But I want to take tai chi and I'm going to take tai chi. I need help relaxing. I'm not looking for the perfect martial art, but quite honestly most of the schools in my area arn't even close to what I'm looking for. It was very easy to find what I was looking for in Seattle.

My advice would be this: Set aside some quiet time, where you can sit down, and write out everything that you want out of the arts. Once you have that list, seek out schools in your area or surrounding areas that either meet exactly what you're looking for, or those that come close. This may require some travel, there may not be any schools in your area that meet your needs, I dont know, only you know that. If it means going to 2 different schools, then so be it. If it means driving 2 hrs. one way, then so be it. If its something you want that bad, then go for it. But its seems to me anyway, again, this is only an observation, that you dabble here, dabble there, get disheartened, dabble more, and so on. Its a revolving door.

Actually this is not the case. I had no problems with the systems in any of the schools, although two of them convinced me Tae-Kwon-Do wasn't what I was looking for after I had taken Tae-Kwon-Do. I really liked two of them, would be training in them now, but I can't currently live in Seattle because of my wife's job. She works for the federal government, we live 30 miles outside of DC and will remain for the next 20-30 years. I stopped going to those schools for various reasons, sometimes a change in work schedule so I just couldn't meet there at the time the classes were offered, sometimes economic, I just couldn't afford it anymore, one time because of the instructor who will remain nameless. Not one of the two.

As I said, the above is simply my advice. You can take it, not take it, take part of it, whatever you'd like. As I said, it seems to me that you enjoy training, but you're having a hard time finding things. I wish you well in your search.

Thanks for your kind post, and this is a good one



You're welcome.

Well, this will be my farewell post and I'm glad it is a positive one. There are many fine people in this forum, but I've been having problems with this site for sometime and this thread finally did it. I find the harsh words written about what I consider to be an outstanding system, "Attack proof" less than friendly. I don't like being called a liar, and Chris Parker called me one in different words. Essentially what I view to be good and what many here consider to be good are too far apart at this time. It's time to leave, I've written Bob to make it official. Thanks MJS, you've been one of the good guys-Joab

 

[Grenadier]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71377. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

- Ronald Shin
- MT Supermoderator

 

[Touch Of Death]

So stated a martial arts school in am email to me recently. Their premise is that if its not close quarters you have the time and space to run away, its only justifiable self defense if your engaged in close quarters (They didn't use the word "justifiable", but I think I'm communicating the essence of a fairly long email)

This makes sense to me. If somebody attacks you and than moves back, out of close quarters range, you really should be able to flee the scene. Certainly from the perspective of criminal and civil laws disengaging and retreating or fleeing or exiting the attacker with haste is very desireable. What do you think, is it not self defense if it isn't close quarters? Does it in fact become a fight rather than self defense if your engaging somebody who is outside of close quarters range? All opinions appreciated.

Controling or neutralizing the situation with the environment is self defense.
Sean

 

[MJS]

Well, looks like I missed a bit of excitement today. LOL. Seriously though, this thread is probably dead...maybe not though.

Anyways...this thread, and many like it, go to show the differences of opinion in what everyone thinks of a particular art. I, as well as many others here, have given some solid advice. Whether or not the person asking decides to take that or not, well, is up to them. The website was posted, a video clip was posted, I believe by Chris. Chris was right...the majority here all said the same thing. The OP opted not to take that advice, feeling that the AP system is good. Hey, like I said in my last post...I too gave advice. I wish the OP well in his search.

 

[Explorer]

This presupposes that the attack is hand to hand, unarmed attack, of course it wouldn't apply if a weapon was being used.

Hi Joab,

You are assuming facts not in evidence in the original post. Therefore this response is a non sequitur. Further, if the training only applies to unarmed attack it is useless in the case of armed assault which comprises a significant portion of self defense situations.

If the original content contained information that said they were only concerned about hand to hand, then you had a duty to report it accurately. If not, refer to the last half of the previous paragraph.

 

[Avenger2616]

One of the first "Reality Based" SD books I ever picked up was the one for this system... After reading it I felt two things 1) if I ever used ANY of the nonsense in the book I'd end up dead, beaten to a pulp or in jail for aggravated assault and or murder and 2) really stupid for having plunked down my money for something so useless as this.
The author actually advocated flat out tearing someone to shreds if they attack you, eye gouging as a first step. "You didn't ask to be assaulted, so he volunteered for the serious injuries he's going to get" type BS. As far as I recall, there was no mention of getting away before the bad guy was a quivering puddle on the floor.