Is being a cop self defense

[Steve]

No, there are no rules. Which means there could be rules. Since otherwise the rule would state there are no rules.

You have to be prepared for anything that could be harmful to you at all times.

But from what I wrote, there was no presumptions about street fight, we were talking about killing intent. Street fights may or may not at any point in time contain a killing intent, you never know. In a cage fight you never have to worry about such a thing, or at least you never will because if you did you would not go into the ring unless they paid you a fortune. If they paid you so much to fight you would not be on this forum writing.

Wait. Now a street fight is self defense? Come on, guys. Make up your minds. I thought it was a mutually agreed upon monkey dance, or something like that.

 

[Phobius]

Huh? Not presumptions? Can you explain the difference between a possibility and a presumption? I can't tell the difference. At the risk of being presumptuous, I think it is possible that a presumption can be a possibility. I actually think that this is pretty typical.

Actually the difference is in meaning, presumptions is based that you assume too quickly that things will be a certain way. Acknowledging possibilities is that you are aware that something could be a certain way. The first will make you blinder to other options, the second will make you ready in case things turns badly. There is definitively a difference in terms of fighting.

Make the presumption that all people will punch you in the face firstly would make you automatically cover your head, but acknoledging the risk that most people do punch in the head makes you just more aware. If you are just aware then you do not make a presumption because you do not simply assume it has to be that way.

Wait. Now a street fight is self defense? Come on, guys. Make up your minds. I thought it was a mutually agreed upon monkey dance, or something like that.

Any fight which does not occur in a controlled environment you need to utilize some kind of self defense. Do not make the presumption your opponent is just there to fight, he might just want to kill you or perhaps is not smart enough to stop fighting when you are lying still on the ground. Or will continue fight until his last breath, or has multiple friends around the corner... the possibilities are endless. You better be prepared for it though.

Never assume a fight in the streets against someone you do not know is not done with killing intent. It will be a shame the moment it is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

I see your point. However, I think TGACE was referring to an attack. In principle, yes, defensive driving has many of the same elements - learning how to avoid and survive dangerous situations. With the others, obviously, we're into an area where real harm isn't (usually) intended, and the situation is more focused on winning than surviving.

I agree with the principle TGACE is putting forth. I'm sure it can be said more definitively, if someone wanted to work on the wording. The principle is pretty sound.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

This is the crux of the matter (so I've replied separately). To me, it's a matter of the reality of the situation. In the ring, with very rare exceptions, if you are incapacitated, the situation ends and you are safe. Outside of sport, that's not true. It's not true for cops, bouncers, or civilians. If we get KO'd by someone, they might keep hitting until the breathing stops or their neurotransmitter flood (emotional hijacking) subsides. For me, this is the distinction between sport and self-defense, rather than focusing on the decision to not flee (the primary distinction between civilians and cops/bouncers).

So, of course, you are right. There is a distinction between those who happen into bad situations (civilians) and those who choose to stand in them (cops, fighters, and bouncers). Just as there is a distinction between those who compete to a point where a "win" is decided (KO, concession, or the match ends for other reasons) and those who have no choice but to try to survive. I find the latter distinction to be the primary point.

 

[Tgace]

And we haven't even touched on the "tangential to fighting" portion of things.

I think a good cop (vs. a "just a paycheck slug") has advantages on or off duty within a familiar environment. I know what areas are prone to trouble. I'm familiar with may of the people in my area who are prone to trouble. I know the streets and the directions of the streets. I think I have a good grasp on "when" to act and when to just be a good set of eyeballs that watches and calls in help. I (hopefully) have an educated thought process regarding how to respond in situations when I'm not in a direct confrontation and the legal aspects of confrontations.

I also think that my experience as a plainclothes/undercover has given me a different set of skills vs my uniform days. I have to decide when to act vs when to watch/follow/call on a far more frequent basis.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And we haven't even touched on the "tangential to fighting" portion of things.

I think a good cop (vs. a "just a paycheck slug") has advantages on or off duty within a familiar environment. I know what areas are prone to trouble. I'm familiar with may of the people in my area who are prone to trouble. I know the streets and the directions of the streets. I think I have a good grasp on "when" to act and when to just be a good set of eyeballs that watches and calls in help. I (hopefully) have an educated thought process regarding how to respond in situations when I'm not in a direct confrontation and the legal aspects of confrontations.

I also think that my experience as a plainclothes/undercover has given me a different set of skills vs my uniform days. I have to decide when to act vs when to watch/follow/call on a far more frequent basis.

I definitely think that a good cop - especially a "beat cop" (do those still exist?) or an undercover cop - spends more time in at least Condition Yellow than most of us, and has experience reading violence cues more often. Those are powerful tools for personal self-defense.

 

[drop bear]

This is the crux of the matter (so I've replied separately). To me, it's a matter of the reality of the situation. In the ring, with very rare exceptions, if you are incapacitated, the situation ends and you are safe. Outside of sport, that's not true. It's not true for cops, bouncers, or civilians. If we get KO'd by someone, they might keep hitting until the breathing stops or their neurotransmitter flood (emotional hijacking) subsides. For me, this is the distinction between sport and self-defense, rather than focusing on the decision to not flee (the primary distinction between civilians and cops/bouncers).

So, of course, you are right. There is a distinction between those who happen into bad situations (civilians) and those who choose to stand in them (cops, fighters, and bouncers). Just as there is a distinction between those who compete to a point where a "win" is decided (KO, concession, or the match ends for other reasons) and those who have no choice but to try to survive. I find the latter distinction to be the primary point.

If you are incapacitated in the street the fight ends as well. Just you then run the risk of having your head stomped in

But self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that.

I mean you could mabye create a training scenario where you develop tactics to fight on aftet both your arms have been broken (and so would reflect a situation you would not face in the ring) but i dont really see the point.

You cant self defence well if you are focused on the risk.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are incapacitated in the street the fight ends as well. Just you then run the risk of having your head stomped in

But self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that.

I mean you could mabye create a training scenario where you develop tactics to fight on aftet both your arms have been broken (and so would reflect a situation you would not face in the ring) but i dont really see the point.

You cant self defence well if you are focused on the risk.

"self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that"

Yes. This is the SD application of sport - I don't disagree at all. I was just drawing the distinction between the sport and the actual defense. The same distinction can be drawn between any training (simulation, competition, randori/kumite, etc.) and actual defense.

 

[drop bear]

"self defence and sport share the idea that you try to avoid that"

Yes. This is the SD application of sport - I don't disagree at all. I was just drawing the distinction between the sport and the actual defense. The same distinction can be drawn between any training (simulation, competition, randori/kumite, etc.) and actual defense.

I think you need to compare methods though. I mean the likleyhood of a pro mma fighter being able to arrest someone vs a police officer winning a mma match.

Both would go to the guy who is the better fighter.

The more I see people transfer from one context to another the more basic ideas tend to win out over these specific ideas. Specific ideas build skills on a basic foundation.

Having been comfortable with a high level of risk is definitely an element but not even close to a deciding one.

People do high risk jobs that are basically incompatible with self defence. More guys have died at our local sugar mill than cops have. But they are hardly performing self defence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you need to compare methods though. I mean the likleyhood of a pro mma fighter being able to arrest someone vs a police officer winning a mma match.

Both would go to the guy who is the better fighter.

The more I see people transfer from one context to another the more basic ideas tend to win out over these specific ideas. Specific ideas build skills on a basic foundation.

Having been comfortable with a high level of risk is definitely an element but not even close to a deciding one.

People do high risk jobs that are basically incompatible with self defence. More guys have died at our local sugar mill than cops have. But they are hardly performing self defence.

I don't know how this got into "MMA fighters are better at..." again. Cops don't train NEARLY as much for combat as the average MMA competitor, so there's really no reason to make the comparison. You might as well say a High School guidance counselor isn't as good at public speaking as a corporate trainer.

And I'm not sure how the comment about deaths at the sugar mill has anything to do with my comment. It seems completely non sequitur.

 

[Buka]

I find it odd that we complicate what fighting is, what self defense means.
Probably has to do with the whole writing things on a screen at different times from different places.

 

[Tgace]

I think that saying a cops experience gives them an advantage in "self defense" could be an accurate statement.... But that's not the same as saying a cops experience makes them a better fighter, or gives them clout in a H2H discussion.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

When it comes down to it, two people in a "fight" outside of any "rules" (where one is attacked vs mutual combat) is self-defense. Doesn't matter if they are cops or MMA fighters.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

thanks, tgace. I think I get it. But once again, i wonder how relevant ltaking down and subduing a pcp crazed junkie while in tactical gear is useful for an average citizen?

My opinion is that the situations a cop experiences while on duty are largely irrelevant to someone who is not a cop, and also mostly to a cop who is not on duty.

I can think of some areas of a cop's experience which could be relevant to civilian self-defense. For example ...

• experience in spotting whether someone is carrying a weapon, where they are carrying it, and if they are reaching for it
• experience in staying cool in an ambiguous situation that might or might not become violence, experience in spotting when the situation is about to become violent, and experience in emotionally "flipping the switch" quickly when the situation does turn violent
• experience in not developing "tunnel vision" - i.e. focusing on a single adversary when there may be multiple threats
• experience in deploying a weapon under stress

I'm not saying that all cops are actually good at all these skills, but I would think that they have a lot more opportunities to learn these skills from experience than most civilians.

 

[drop bear]

I find it odd that we complicate what fighting is, what self defense means.
Probably has to do with the whole writing things on a screen at different times from different places.

It's a sales pitch.

In a fight a boxers fists will break.
Bjj guy will go to the ground and be stomped.
Tkd guy will kick high and fall over.
A 90 year old will not be able to use judo against a guy on PCP.

And this is why drop bear fu is the most applicable martial art. Not based on its own merits but because it is not one of the above methods.

 

[drop bear]

I don't know how this got into "MMA fighters are better at..." again. Cops don't train NEARLY as much for combat as the average MMA competitor, so there's really no reason to make the comparison. You might as well say a High School guidance counselor isn't as good at public speaking as a corporate trainer.

And I'm not sure how the comment about deaths at the sugar mill has anything to do with my comment. It seems completely non sequitur.

No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.

You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.

 

[Tgace]

No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.

You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.

Is that sarcasm?

Industrial accidents vs the risk of getting attacked/stabbed/shot as part of the job description are two very different situations. "Most" Infantrymen (from a per capita standpoint) are not going to be killed by enemy action. But do we say a Tuna Fisherman is somehow equal to a Veteran Grunt because of their industrial accident rate?

Risk of injury doesn't make anything "closer to self-defense". Unless mill workers attack each other at a higher rate than other professions....

 

[drop bear]

Is that sarcasm?

Industrial accidents vs the risk of getting attacked/stabbed/shot as part of the job description are two very different situations. "Most" Infantrymen (from a per capita standpoint) are not going to be killed by enemy action. But do we say a Tuna Fisherman is somehow equal to a Veteran Grunt because of their industrial accident rate?

Risk of injury doesn't make anything "closer to self-defense". Unless mill workers attack each other at a higher rate than other professions....

Cool. So risk is not a deciding factor.

Glad we got that sorted out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I didn't say mma fighters are better at.

You were comparing risk. It is riskier to work that mill than be a police officer. So working a mill is closer to self defence than being a police officer.

Actually, I didn't compare risk on an absolute basis - that was a previous poster. I spoke to intent. To that post, your comment is quite relevant.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, I didn't compare risk on an absolute basis - that was a previous poster. I spoke to intent. To that post, your comment is quite relevant.

People fight with bad intentions. Rules, No rules,police,civilians.

Your intent is one of the more common denominators.