Is being a cop self defense
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Everybody wants to have the monopoly on what is self defence and what isn't.
It is what makes us special.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
People in mma schools were not born there. You get people who have wandered around the real world as well.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
your arguing points that have never been made
again I've never said that either. I said the mental and emotional aspect of self defense is much closer to what Police, Combat Vets, people that grow up in bad areas and are constantly facing life or death violence then to an MMA fighter training for a match
again not something anyone was arguing
again nobody has suggested anyone should become a cop to be better at self defense
yep but the off duty officer should be better equipped mentally and emotionally to handle it. Especially the longer they have been in the job they have been through "fight or flight" fear more times so can process and deal with it better unless they are drunker then they should be. Which getting drunk in public isn't smart for self defense
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
The same isn't it. Because they choose to be there. They can choose not to be there.
People do high risk activities without emotional trauma.
Pretty much self defence is a situation where they do not choose to be there.
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
I have no idea what Your Trying to say here sorry
I think there is more agreement than disagreement in this thread. The disagreements seem to be more about semantics and personal animosities than disputing the facts. Let's see if I can lay out some framework for discussion that most of us can agree with...
1) Violence is a huge area of study. No one is or can be an expert in all it's forms. There can be huge differences in how it plays out in different contexts. There can also be commonalities that carry over from one context to another.
2) Self-defense (as a concept, not a legal term) is a huge area of study. Only a relatively small portion of it involves actual fighting.
3) In conversation regarding their practice, martial artists often use "self-defense" to describe just the subset of the greater self-defense picture that involves fighting. This is an acceptable shorthand as long as they a) don't forget about the rest of the self-defense picture and b) don't confuse fighting in general with the specific subset of fighting which might be involved in self-defense.
4) MMA competition is a particular form of violence - a consensual challenge match between two skilled, well-conditioned unarmed martial artists. As such, it has significant differences from other forms of violence, such as a police officer subduing a resisting suspect, a teenage girl fending off a date rapist, or a cavalry charge on an 18th-century battlefield. It also has some commonalities and lessons which can carry over to some other contexts including some situations of an individual fighting in self-defense. A martial artist who is concerned with the skills of fighting in self-defense is well-advised to figure out which lessons can be generalized from MMA to other contexts and which cannot.
5) The daily work of a police officer can involve dealing with violence in various forms (initiating violence, breaking up violence, defending themselves against violence initiated by another) as well as being aware of and de-escalating potential violence (which is another part of the greater self-defense picture) and dealing with the emotional and legal aftermath of violence. There are some significant differences in the experiences and optimum tactics and strategy of a police officer versus those of a civilian concerned with self-defense. There are also a ton of useful lessons that do carry over to civilian self-defense (both the fighting part and the bigger picture), which is why I make every effort to learn from my LEO friends who are willing to share their knowledge.
6) The lessons which can be usefully gleaned from MMA are mostly not the same lessons which can be usefully taken from LEO experiences. Therefore, instead of arguing about which is better or tougher or more "self-defense", we might better occupy ourselves with looking at both and figuring out which specific lessons from each can helpfully apply to our own situation and which cannot.
1) Violence is a huge area of study. No one is or can be an expert in all it's forms. There can be huge differences in how it plays out in different contexts. There can also be commonalities that carry over from one context to another.
2) Self-defense (as a concept, not a legal term) is a huge area of study. Only a relatively small portion of it involves actual fighting.
3) In conversation regarding their practice, martial artists often use "self-defense" to describe just the subset of the greater self-defense picture that involves fighting. This is an acceptable shorthand as long as they a) don't forget about the rest of the self-defense picture and b) don't confuse fighting in general with the specific subset of fighting which might be involved in self-defense.
4) MMA competition is a particular form of violence - a consensual challenge match between two skilled, well-conditioned unarmed martial artists. As such, it has significant differences from other forms of violence, such as a police officer subduing a resisting suspect, a teenage girl fending off a date rapist, or a cavalry charge on an 18th-century battlefield. It also has some commonalities and lessons which can carry over to some other contexts including some situations of an individual fighting in self-defense. A martial artist who is concerned with the skills of fighting in self-defense is well-advised to figure out which lessons can be generalized from MMA to other contexts and which cannot.
5) The daily work of a police officer can involve dealing with violence in various forms (initiating violence, breaking up violence, defending themselves against violence initiated by another) as well as being aware of and de-escalating potential violence (which is another part of the greater self-defense picture) and dealing with the emotional and legal aftermath of violence. There are some significant differences in the experiences and optimum tactics and strategy of a police officer versus those of a civilian concerned with self-defense. There are also a ton of useful lessons that do carry over to civilian self-defense (both the fighting part and the bigger picture), which is why I make every effort to learn from my LEO friends who are willing to share their knowledge.
6) The lessons which can be usefully gleaned from MMA are mostly not the same lessons which can be usefully taken from LEO experiences. Therefore, instead of arguing about which is better or tougher or more "self-defense", we might better occupy ourselves with looking at both and figuring out which specific lessons from each can helpfully apply to our own situation and which cannot.
That's perhaps the least convenient thing about the concept, for those of us who want to prepare people for it. Students come in with widely varying expectations, and we have to help them manage those into realistic and reality-based goals.
Not entirely true. I choose to be at my home, but I don't choose the home invasion two of my family friends have experienced. A cop chooses to be on the force, but he doesn't choose to be attacked by someone with a knife.
On the whole, yes, they've made choices that put them in harm's way more often, but once the attack starts, the choice has ended for the moment. The only choice that radically differs has been discussed: I can run, the cop (though he could choose to run if deemed necessary) has a duty to stand and end the conflict before it ends badly for a civilian.
I think this boils down to whether we are talking about the overall choice of being a cop, or the individual situation where a cop is defending themself from a specific attack. The former is far from self-defense, and I think that's your point in this - a point with which I agree. The latter is pretty close to self-defense (with the previously noted caveats), and that's the point others are making, and the point I've mostly been making in this thread.
I actually don't think we have much to disagree with on this one, as far as cops go. We have simply been talking about two different areas of the question. It's the whole "blind men describing an elephant" problem.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
There is a convenient marketing side to self defence though. In that i can claim my style is equipped to deal with self defence and yours isn't. This is because it is such a varied and obscure concept that I can make it out to be anything I want.
I can agree with that. Of course, the same could be said about competition, if the schools/styles are in different competitive arenas. If I open a Tang Soo Do school down the street from your Judo academy or MMA gym, we could easily jawjack over that and which is the better competition. As someone said in one of the other threads, the question would be, "Better for what?"
But, yes, there's far more room for interpretation hyperbole with SD-oriented schools. If I open a Judo academy down the street from your Judo academy, and we both claim to have the best training method for Judo competition, the truth would become clear shortly thereafter. Hopefully, there will be no such opportunity to evaluate the SD styles on their claims.
Drop Bear and I are agreeing on something. Quick, somebody lock this thread!
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
We do that within our own club as we have competent multi stylists.
Last night we had two guys yelling wrestling and jujitsu at each other.
Either of them could eat me alive by the way.
The skills and training required by law enforcement, security, military, MMA, and for civilian self-defense are all different. This is why it's never a good idea for a police officer to try to teach self-defense to civilians. Their job requires them to engage potential threats, they are always armed to include back-up weapons, and often they work in teams or have access to assistance from other officers. In the process of their job they are often required to control and contain subjects rather than disable them in order to safely escape. In short they have options that many civilians won't have when forced to protect themselves or their loved ones.
Steve
I understand your point, a good one, but that's not always the case. I didn't become a cop until I was in my mid thirties, had been training full time (as my profession) for fifteen years at that point, teaching civilian students and law enforcement officers. Being a cop taught me more about city, state and federal law than I had any clue even existed. The greatest benefactors were my civilian students, even more so than fellow police officers, all of whom went through academy training.
And - civilians have some options that law enforcement officers do not have. As a civilian, if I'm defending myself I can use a rear naked choke if the opportunity presents itself. If I land it - I can end the encounter with no damage to the other person. As a cop I can't do that, which is such a shame.
As a cop, those very weapons you mentioned, if they aren't being utilized in a particular situation during the arrest or control of a violent individual, can often become a liability. And they're heavy, bulky and sometimes snag on things during a tussle.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Yeah but we are using the proffession not the person. I mean there is probably a cop out there who is a ripping hot accountant.
But you are not really going to learn accountancy off them Because they have cop on their resume.
OP
OP
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I agree with the other Steve for the most part but would shy away from making absolute statements using the word "never."
The point of the thread initially was to discuss the idea that, like MMA, being a cop is not the same thing as self defense. There is overlap in both, for sure, but some posters here apply a double standard, where on the one hand they dismiss fighting a well trained, physically fit opponent in a cage as not self defense, but somehow fighting a pcp crazed junkie on a street while armed with pepper spray, a gun, a taser, and a radio, as self defense.
The point of the thread initially was to discuss the idea that, like MMA, being a cop is not the same thing as self defense. There is overlap in both, for sure, but some posters here apply a double standard, where on the one hand they dismiss fighting a well trained, physically fit opponent in a cage as not self defense, but somehow fighting a pcp crazed junkie on a street while armed with pepper spray, a gun, a taser, and a radio, as self defense.
OP
OP
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I don't know, tgace. That's a bit simplistic, I think. Is defensive driving self defense? My brother was killed in a car crash a year ago next month. I think about that a lot, but i wouldn't call it self defense. Death, however, is on the table every time we hit the road.
Or maybe closer to what you have in mind, people have died in MMA matches, boxing matches, shoot even playing soccer. And would it matter if the risk of death is voluntary? If you choose the risk, such as jumping out of a plane, stepping into a cage or working as a cop, is there a meaningful difference between that and someone who isn't choosing to be in a violent encounter, such as being mugged? I see a difference. Am I the only one?
But maybe the question isn't really whether the experience of a cop defending against the pcp crazed junkie ballen talks about is self defense. Let's agree that It is self defense, for the sake of discussion. The question then is, is this experience equivalent to civilian self defense in Contrast to being an MMA fighter? There are some here who are adamant that sport is not self defense. Fine. But isnt there also a similar distinction between policing and self defense, or bouncing and self defense? further, wouldn't self defense be fundamentally different for a cop on duty or off duty? Are the risks the same?
