Non injurious, humane self defense?

[sgtmac_46]

Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?

Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like.

Ask yourself this.......how does one physically weaker and smaller than their attacker utilize less force than their attacker is using against them, and still come out ahead?

It's a nice idea, that isn't usually practical. Because if you were stronger and more physically fit than your attacker, you probably wouldn't be attacked........predators usually have a pretty good prey selection process.

 

[still learning]

Regarding the mention of a gun:

My understanding is that you should NEVER draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.

Nor should you ever "shoot to wound."

If you produce a firearm for self defense, you must only do so with the knowledge that, by shooting center body mass to stop the threat, you very well may end up shooting the aggressor dead.

Drawing a gun to wave like a Magic Wand of Don't Attack Me is a BAD idea.

Hello, YET? ...it does work in stopping most aggressors' ...."hands up!" ...spread your legs...give me 50 jumping jacks..."one, two" ...

Aloha, ...weapons...do work in stopping further attacks...can be a long handle flashlight...etc

PS: Shotgun weddings.....Humane self-defense's ....

 

[sgtmac_46]

I have been doing this for a while and I have never done serious injury to anyone using defensive tactics (LEO) and I cannot think of anyone else on my department or anyone from the County (the Deputies) having done so either.

We use our own system and the County uses Krav Maga both are very practical, take only about 40 hrs to get the core of it and mostly about control although the Krav stuff seems a little more ...."violent?"

I've been in Law Enforcement for 12 years, and the reason why you've managed not to injure anyone severely, is the large number of tools on your belt, superior numbers, and the fact that most folks don't seriously fight the police......most resisting situations are someone trying to get away, not assault an officer.

I hear officers all the time say 'I had to fight a guy last night'.......what they really mean was the guy actively resisted by trying to get away. In those situation, where an officer is physically fit, has tools, has backup, and has his authority, he can control without injury........the problem is that really isn't a 'fight'. A fight is where someone is trying to HURT or KILL you, not just escape. Resisting occurs all the time in law enforcement, but a real honest to god FIGHT is rare, and usually results with someone going to the hospital or the morgue.

Now, get yourself that very rare situation where someone isn't just trying to get away, but actively assault you, and i'm willing to bet that you'll be causing injury.

 

[joeygil]

Try Western / Collegiate Wrestling. Since it's a sport, they work on not injuring your opponent. Yet there's plenty of pain compliance and holds to "neutralize" your opponent, all non-lethally and might not even leave a bruise.

Ask a bouncer at a club or a bar, they tend to know pain compliance holds without getting in serious trouble.


If you're drunk cousin, uncle or friend needs to be "controlled" this seems like a good alternative if you can't talk them down. Much better than finger jabs to the eyes anyway...

 

[Touch Of Death]

Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?

Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like.

I'm not sure you can ever avoid the attacker hurting themselves in the process of trying to hurt you, but any soft style has many answers.
Sean

 

[zDom]

Hello, YET? ...it does work in stopping most aggressors' ...."hands up!" ...spread your legs...give me 50 jumping jacks..."one, two" ...

I'm not saying firearms don't deter aggressors; I'm saying drawing a firearm as a "non-injurious, humane self defense" solution is a bad mindset.

For example, consider a scenario in which you and your brother or a dear friend are having drinks and he (or she!) turns violent:

You are suggesting you draw a pistol to back them down? Sure, if they DO back down, then all is well, and situation ended with no injuries. But what if they say "**** IT" and attack? THEN what? You shoot him? You let him wrestle with you for control of the gun?

Again, to repeat myself, a firearm is NOT a magic wand that makes an attacker stop. Sure, anyone in their right mind WOULD stop, and many aggressors WILL begin to comply with your demands.

But you can NOT depend on them being in their right mind. Fact is, you may have to shoot them or face the consequences of them taking that firearm away and shooting YOU.

 

[zDom]

Are there self defense systems that are practical (ie-they work) and normally do not seriously injure an attacker? If so what are they? Are they the future of self defense and the only way to go when defending yourself while at the same time keeping you out of jail and/or civil liability?

Of course I can already hear one question coming: What constitutes "serious injury" to an attacker? Well, I would say an injury that puts one in the hospital, say a broken bone, busted knee, a jaw that needs to be wired shut, and the like. Not seriously injured would be a bruise, soreness, and the like.

I think one of the very best options can be a blood choke.

Done correctly, and if the attacker is in reasonably good shape, they go to sleep and wake up with no ill effects.

But it is a slippery slope: you have to be well-trained enough to target the blood flow to the brain without crushing the windpipe; to cause unconciousness without causing brain damage — to knock them out temporarily and not put them permanently to sleep!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Absolutely agree and +1 zDom.

Brandishing a firearm may - and I say 'may' - result in defusing a situation, or in persuading a criminal to abort an attack on a victim.

However, a firearm should never be drawn until and unless the requirements have been met for the legal use of deadly force. If that is not true, the person brandishing the firearm is probably breaking the law. If it is true, then the person brandishing the firearm should most likely use it to defend their own life immediately.

In other words, if I am authorized to defend myself with deadly force, and I choose to draw a weapon, the very next thing that happens is I take a human life with it. No waiting, no pausing, no flourishing the gun or waving it about. Draw firearm, aim center mass and fire with the intent to protect my own life.

Guns are not magic wands. If you're authorized to use it, use it. If you're not authorized to use it and you are waving it around, not only are you wrong, but you're liable to be killed yourself.

About the only circumstances I can think of where I would NOT immediately employ a firearm that I had drawn in self-defense would be if the person attacking me IMMEDIATELY (like that nano-second) surrendered and aborted his attack. He's got like half a heartbeat to prevent me from squeezing the trigger by giving up, and I'm not going to tell him that first. He stops or he dies. End of discussion.

 

[Bruno@MT]

The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim. There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack. I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true. They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.

What the law is interested in is when a person may engage in self-defense, and more specifically, when a person may defend themselves with deadly force. If the conditions are met, then the self-defense is lawful, and the degree of injury experienced by the attacker is not a consideration.

I think that depends on what country you are in.
In Belgium, the law states that the response has to be proportional to the attack. In other words, if you hit me, I cannot just block and then break your neck. Non-lethal force cannot legally be countered by lethal force.

Of course, this is just the letter of the law. level of force is open to interpretation, and if the lethality of the response was not intentional, then the case is in favor of the defender.

I mean its not cut and dried, but the degree of injury of the attacker IS a consideration (afterwards). That is why countering a lapel grab with a fist to the plexus and then a kick right in the face is not a good idea.

Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that gives concern to the well-being of the attacker in a self-defense situation. I am primarily concerned with my own well-being, placing that above the well-being of anyone who attacks me. I am also concerned with not running afoul of the law, and I will absolutely turn tail and run or drive away or whatever else I can do to escape if I can reasonably do so to avoid being attacked. I'll even turn over my wallet and possessions if I feel that it will keep me from being killed or seriously injured. However, if I feel that I cannot retreat, and if I feel that turning over my possessions is still likely to get me killed or seriously injured, then I am going to defend myself with everything I have, and if the attacker gets seriously injured, I figure that's their karma, not mine. I'm not trying to kill them, but if they get dead, oh well.

+1 on this one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that depends on what country you are in.
In Belgium, the law states that the response has to be proportional to the attack. In other words, if you hit me, I cannot just block and then break your neck. Non-lethal force cannot legally be countered by lethal force.

Of course, this is just the letter of the law. level of force is open to interpretation, and if the lethality of the response was not intentional, then the case is in favor of the defender.

I mean its not cut and dried, but the degree of injury of the attacker IS a consideration (afterwards). That is why countering a lapel grab with a fist to the plexus and then a kick right in the face is not a good idea.

Sorry, I should have specified that I meant the USA.

 

[Joab]

The tools are available in every martial art it is up to the practicer to determine what degree of injury to inflict.
Well, the one I'm most familiar with there is very little that doesn't maim or kill. The originator doesn't like the name of the system to be in in forums like this.

Aikido looks peaceful until you throw someone into a wall.

Yeah, you could kill somebody with aikido, seriously.

One would think Bagua was very peaceful because we have no fist strikes we use only the palm. Until you see the palm can cause internal bleeding,blindness from poked in the eye,a palm strike to break someones nose.

Again, the one I'm most familiar with primarily uses palm strikes, lots of nasty things can be done with the unclenced hand

Judo throws such as Tomoe nage(wheel throw) can have quite an impact on someone who does not know breakfalls. Sadly in the situtations of life and death surivial you might have to perform a broken bone,busted knee and so on but it is entirely up to you the amount of injury to inflict and if you choose to help the injured person or not.

Quite true

 

[Archangel M]

No such animal...except "Nike-Fu".

Even "less lethal" LE tools like tasers, OC, beanbag rounds etc. carry risks of severe injury or death.

 

[Joab]

The laws regarding personal self-defense are generally not involved with the amount or degree of injury done to the attacker by the victim. There is a common but mistaken perception that a victim is required to apply the least amount of force necessary to end an attack. I am not a lawyer, but in my experience, this is simply not true. They must stop applying violence when the danger to themselves has ended, but that is not the same as limiting the degree of violence they use.

This gets very complicated, and I'm not a lawyer. Self defense laws vary, you need to consult your local laws. In the USA it is generally true that a jury or judge or both will decide if the amount of force if any was appropriate, or put another way, what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. If you use deadly force against an attacker who is not using lethal force he can be the one who is considered the one who is engaging in self defense even though he initiated it. If the attack occurs in your own home it is an entirely diiferent ballgame. In some states like Washington State you can immediately defend yourself the moment he unlawfully enters your home including deadly force with a fiream, as English Common Law tradition that a mans' home is his castle holds true in their laws. This is not the case in Delaware, where even in your own home you are supposed to retreat if possible, insane as that is definitely to me.

What the law is interested in is when a person may engage in self-defense, and more specifically, when a person may defend themselves with deadly force. If the conditions are met, then the self-defense is lawful, and the degree of injury experienced by the attacker is not a consideration.

When the 'degree of injury' might come to the fore is if a victim were to find himself or herself sued by an attacker, so one might think of that as a consideration; but I would not. Self-defense is perforce an immediate and urgent need. I would not want to hamstring myself by attempting to limit my response to that which would likely do the least damage to the attacker.

Well, lawsuits by the attacker or estate is a consideration. It depends on the situation, you need to do what you need to do to survive and immediate family members as well.

Police officers also need to consider the degree of force applied, but they operate under different rules. They are expected to use only that force which is required to secure an apprehension or to defend themselves. They are expected to have training and the ability to choose less lethal responses from among a variety of options.

This is true of security personnel as well, although cops have more leeway.

For the citizen, the concerns are 'am I authorized to defend myself' and 'may I use deadly force in this case'?

Having said that, I still believe that analysis of a situation in a SD situation is important, and 'running away' is a valid response if it is safe to do so.

Oh definitely, run if at all possible. I have gotten myself out of many a predicament by getting into my car and driving away.

I can understand anyone desire to protect themselves but to avoid unnecessary injury to anyone, even an attacker. Like others, the first thing that came to my mind was Aikido. Also like others, I agree that it is down to the way it is used (degree of skill and intent of the practitioner) as to whether or not it will be especially non-injurious to the attacker.

Well, there is a question as to whether or not Aikido works. I think it does if one is an expert, I'm biased somewhat from previous teachers who did not regard Aikido highly.


Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the school of thought that gives concern to the well-being of the attacker in a self-defense situation. I am primarily concerned with my own well-being, placing that above the well-being of anyone who attacks me. I am also concerned with not running afoul of the law, and I will absolutely turn tail and run or drive away or whatever else I can do to escape if I can reasonably do so to avoid being attacked. I'll even turn over my wallet and possessions if I feel that it will keep me from being killed or seriously injured. However, if I feel that I cannot retreat, and if I feel that turning over my possessions is still likely to get me killed or seriously injured, then I am going to defend myself with everything I have, and if the attacker gets seriously injured, I figure that's their karma, not mine. I'm not trying to kill them, but if they get dead, oh well.

Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.

 

[Joab]

This is, IMHO, one of the goals of the martial arts. We should reach a point, when we can control what we do, how we do it, etc. I mean think about it.....this is why I cringe when I hear people talking about the supposed "one shot one kill, deadly techniques, like biting and eye gouging" Sure those are all fine and good and they do work, but IMO, if thats what the person needs to do to always win, then that person needs to re-evaluate their training.

So yes, to answer your question, any art out there can do this, but it all depends on the person doing the art.

Any art eh? Well, the ones I have taken don't have a lot of that in their repertoire. Heck, all four taught me to kick out a knee to begin with. I know how to do it many different ways. These include tae-kwon-do, wing chun, krav maga and one that doesn't like to be included in forums like this.

 

[Archangel M]

Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.

So would we all, but going into "combat", so to speak, with the attitude of fear of lawsuits will only help make you dead.

If you think you have worries, try working in LE. Cops have gotten themselves killed by not acting with enough force...out of fear of litigation.

You train in effective techniques, use them WHEN APPROPRIATE, make wise after action decisions and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, I don't believe in karma, but I don't want to rot in jail or have part of my paycheck for the rest of my life go to the guy or his estate either. Yes, if all else fails I would even kill, and I know a lot of ways to do that. But I would prefer to run or do the least amount of harm if that is possible to avoid trouble with the law and lawsuits.

Again, in the USA, there is no such thing as a requirement to inflict only a certain degree of damage and no more. It just doesn't exist for citizens.

If you have the right to self-defense, you have the right. The level of damage you may inflict does not enter into it.

I hear you saying you fear arrest. If you are not entitled to defend yourself, you are right to fear it. If you are entitled to defend yourself, you have nothing to fear. And it does not matter what you do to defend yourself, short of applying deadly force when it is unwarranted.

You fear something that doesn't exist in the US.

 

[Joab]

I agree with what was earlier said by K831, that "Any attacker you can stop by giving a bruise was probably not a real threat in the first place".
Well, they might not expect resistance.
Bullies tend to e cowards, fighting back frightens them.

An angry guy who just happened to vent on you, and whom you managed to talk into calming down, isn't really a threat.
If all he is doing is venting your right.


A criminal, say, threatening you with a knife to your throat and demanding your valuables, is a threat, considering you either stop him with your valuables (which I'm pretty sure are worth much more than a bruise, or a few) or an incapacitating technique.

He would have my valuables.

Actually my first thought on seeing "non-injurious self defense" was that it would constitute either verbal de-escalation (not always successful or applicable), complete avoidance of potentially dangerous scenarios (impossible), escape (again not always successful or applicable) or a skill difference between the defender and attacker sufficient for a "serious injury"-free conflict resolution (really difficult, not always possible).

Verbal deescalation has worked for me countless times. In my fifteen years of working in secuirty in virtually every kind of security known to man, I have been given a lot of training, even "verbal judo" and really seem to have a knack for diplomacy. Being 6' 0" 240 with a good build helps as well. Escape has worked as well, skill difference worked once, the guy was a real amatuer, I wasn't much better back than.

I suppose the amount of danger (read: potential for physical harm to be inflicted upon you) you're in would often be proportionate to the amount of physical harm required to be inflicted on the attacker for him to stop, barring abovementioned skill differences, escape routes, and Force powers at the Mind Trick level.

Yeah, I would love to learn the Jedi mind trick.

 

[Joab]

Hello, If there was a humane Self-defense art that works 100% of the time?

Martial arts today..would be doing it! ..the police...armies of the world...

...when you come down to it? ....it is NOT the form of self-defense ...it is the people you will be facing!

...and some people...can be HANDLE W/ humane self-defense? ....others you may need to be more aggressive to suvive and live another day...

...there is NO SIMPLE ANSWERS ....there is simple techniques.

Aloha, 911 works

If they get there on time. Never seems to be a cop around when you need one...

 

[Joab]

Regarding the mention of a gun:

My understanding is that you should NEVER draw a gun thinking that showing the aggressor a gun will end the conflict.

Nor should you ever "shoot to wound."

If you produce a firearm for self defense, you must only do so with the knowledge that, by shooting center body mass to stop the threat, you very well may end up shooting the aggressor dead.

Drawing a gun to wave like a Magic Wand of Don't Attack Me is a BAD idea.

I was trained that if you draw a gun on somebody discharge immediately. This was not security training, it was self defense training. Shoot two times in the center mass than once in the head to be sure. Again, it is this kind of "kill or be killed" mentality that I'm looking for options around. I know how to kill and maim, I don't know how to restrain.

 

[Joab]

Ask yourself this.......how does one physically weaker and smaller than their attacker utilize less force than their attacker is using against them, and still come out ahead?

It's a nice idea, that isn't usually practical. Because if you were stronger and more physically fit than your attacker, you probably wouldn't be attacked........predators usually have a pretty good prey selection process.

Many self defense teachers would agree with you, like all of my former teachers. They may be right, you may be right.