Non injurious, humane self defense?

[sgtmac_46]

I used to be a bouncer, never had to bounce anyone to be honest, I was more of a deterrent. Checked a lot of ID's. I don't know any pain compliance holds. I've been told they only work with somebody who isn't resisting or after someone has been stunned by a hit or kick first.

They do work to some degree......but they work best when you are bigger and stronger than your resisting subject. They are the kind of techniques than can be employed when you have a significant advantage over the resisting subject, and don't wish to cause serious physical injury.

As I stated, the danger comes in thinking those techniques can be applied to win a confrontation against someone who has an advantage of us, not the other way around.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Amen, brother. One of the first rules of firearms safety is never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. I don't believe a person should even carry a gun unless he has made up his mind ahead of time that he will shoot to kill if the situation warrants it. If you're not willing to pull the trigger, don't carry a gun. Period.

As for "non-injurious" SD tactics, I have little interest in such things. Maybe I'm just a barbarian but if anybody attacks me, my goal is to injure them as badly as I can as quickly as I can and get the hell out of there before his buddies have time to react. I'll deal with the cops later.

That's good in general, but lets say that someday grandpa gets dementia and starts assaulting grandma, not because he wants to hurt anyone, but because he's out of his mind.......how are you going to control him? I'm going to assume you're going to use ONLY the level of force necessary to restrain him.

There are always situations where we want to be able to only use the level of force necessary to restrain, not to cause undue physical injury.........these types of situations aren't always 'bad guys'. It can be the neighbor having an insulin reaction lashing out uncontrollably.

 

[blackxpress]

That's good in general, but lets say that someday grandpa gets dementia and starts assaulting grandma, not because he wants to hurt anyone, but because he's out of his mind.......how are you going to control him? I'm going to assume you're going to use ONLY the level of force necessary to restrain him.

There are always situations where we want to be able to only use the level of force necessary to restrain, not to cause undue physical injury.........these types of situations aren't always 'bad guys'. It can be the neighbor having an insulin reaction lashing out uncontrollably.

Depends. How good of shape is Grandpa in? Does he have a weapon? I'm not going to let him kill Grandma (or me) if I can help it. I'll choke him out if I can. Otherwise, too bad for Grandpa.

 

[jks9199]

Well, that's the way I have always been trained. They may be right you may be right. Thanks for the input.

He's speaking from professional experience, and I suspect a great deal more training than you have. And he's right. You are NOT justified in shooting if the presentation of the weapon eliminates the deadly threat. I'm not saying "wait 3 seconds and see..." but that you have to be alert enough to assess the threat as you draw and respond, because the situation will change every millisecond the encounter lasts.

Your goal and desire is quite admirable. But the reality of a violent encounter is seen in my signature line, by Rory Miller. He's stated it so well I cannot restate it effectively.

If you've learned to punch the head, you can punch the shoulder instead. If you've learned to take out the knee with a kick, you can change that target to the calf or thigh, if it fits your goals of the moment. If you lack this control, you're no better than an animal or a spring-loaded bear trap, with no ability to differentiate your response to the situation. And I don't think that's the case, by the questions you ask. The techniques of the Bando Monk System are less harmful by their target choice -- not by their nature.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Depends. How good of shape is Grandpa in? Does he have a weapon? I'm not going to let him kill Grandma (or me) if I can help it. I'll choke him out if I can. Otherwise, too bad for Grandpa.

How much force you actually use will depend on the threat, you should use the level of force necessary to stop, but the real point is that I would hope that the complete disregard for his safety statement wouldn't apply in those situations.......somewhere in the back of your mind should be in that situation that we do have a regard for grandpa's safety, where we might not the methhead scrotum that is sticking a gun in to our rib cage. It's not always good guys/bad guys.

At the same time some folks buy it........but not all those who we might have to restrain have actually bought it, and morally, if not necessarily legally, we have an obligation to show some more due regard for those individuals who's actions aren't really of the free will type, if we can do so without harming ourselves or others.

 

[blackxpress]

How much force you actually use will depend on the threat, you should use the level of force necessary to stop, but the real point is that I would hope that the complete disregard for his safety statement wouldn't apply in those situations.......somewhere in the back of your mind should be in that situation that we do have a regard for grandpa's safety, where we might not the methhead scrotum that is sticking a gun in to our rib cage. It's not always good guys/bad guys.

At the same time some folks buy it........but not all those who we might have to restrain have actually bought it, and morally, if not necessarily legally, we have an obligation to show some more due regard for those individuals who's actions aren't really of the free will type, if we can do so without harming ourselves or others.

Point well taken and I agree, of course. But getting back to your Grandpa scenario, both of my grandfathers were big, strong men even in their later years. My paternal grandfather was especially big and strong. I can't imagine having to fight him. He was a rough customer. If he would've ever gone out of his mind and gone on a violent rampage I can't think of any non-injurious techniques that I could use to bring him under control. I've trained a good bit of Jujitsu and do know a fair number of submission holds, takedowns, etc. and. realistically, I just can't see any of them working in that situation. When the adrenaline starts pumping and people's lives are on the line small joint manipulations are mighty hard to pull off. It will probably come down to who's bigger, stronger, faster and hits the hardest. That would be me. Much as I would hate to do it i would hurt him and hurt him bad if that's what it took.

Remember, the original poster was looking for a martial art that doesn't contain that element. As far as I'm concerned any such martial art would not be worth much.

 

[Xinglu]

All defensive techniques cause injury to one degree or another - even pain compliance. Pain means some injury is occurring - even if it is minor and easily recovered from. With that said, pain compliance generally works if you have numbers to back you up (LEO) or only have one opponent (unlikely now days). If faced with opponents that don't feel pain or out numbered it will be necessary to take those compliance methods into serious injury by damaging the tendons ligaments and bones by torquing them hard and fast. This can end threats but causes serious damage.

I would argue that any art that does not give you the ability to end a threat quickly by disabling your opponent is not worth much. Fortunately, I don't know of a single art that doesn't have this potential so I don't have to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Point well taken and I agree, of course. But getting back to your Grandpa scenario, both of my grandfathers were big, strong men even in their later years. My paternal grandfather was especially big and strong. I can't imagine having to fight him. He was a rough customer. If he would've ever gone out of his mind and gone on a violent rampage I can't think of any non-injurious techniques that I could use to bring him under control. I've trained a good bit of Jujitsu and do know a fair number of submission holds, takedowns, etc. and. realistically, I just can't see any of them working in that situation. When the adrenaline starts pumping and people's lives are on the line small joint manipulations are mighty hard to pull off. It will probably come down to who's bigger, stronger, faster and hits the hardest. That would be me. Much as I would hate to do it i would hurt him and hurt him bad if that's what it took.

Remember, the original poster was looking for a martial art that doesn't contain that element. As far as I'm concerned any such martial art would not be worth much.

That much I agree with........the only difference is some people you don't care if you hurt, some people you do.

 

[Big Don]

It is probably just my smart *** nature, but, I have to ask:
Non injurious, humane self defense? Where's the fun in that?

 

[Deaf Smith]

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.

Yes there is Joab to not injure your attacker in a permanently way.


You have a choice. (1) you must learn to reject worldly goods. Live in poverty. Give your shirt to those who ask regardless of why they want it. Accept whatever torment they do to you even unto death. Either do that or (2) move to an uninhabited island and never come back.

Either of these methods will not injure your opponent permanently. They may get bruised knuckles from punching you, or pulled muscles from kicking you or even hurt their feelings when you move away, but you will not hurt them permanently.

Deaf

 

[tallgeese]

If and when it comes to defending one's self, non-injury to my attacker is the last thing on my mind. Respond appropriatly to the force give, and let the chips fall. If you're response is reasonable you'll be fine in the aftermath.

Worrying over the attacker will get you hurt.

 

[BLACK LION]

Active avoidance and evasion would be ones best bet if they did not want to cause any physical harm... once it gets to the point where physical means are needed for compliance, one should be full and well ready to be as unfair as possible becuase you never know what thier true intentions are...A simple altercation can go to anti-social and then full speed to asocial in a heart beat... One minute you are getting complicance without "injurous force" and the next minute you are being stabbed or geeting stomped by his buddies...
Trying to get compliance without real force only really applies if you are bigger and stronger... Try putting a guy 2x your size in some form of restraint or control maneuver.... not happening.

I stay away from physicality on anything that doesnt warrant them getting hurt... I can either subtract myself completely or use "verbal force"... if these dont work and its hands on time someone is getting hurt and I plan on being as unfair as possible...
I have been in situations in which the opposition beat themselves and I never had to touch them... often times they swung and charged and foamed at the mouth with anger but just couldnt get to me and it required no physical force other than evading...

 

[BLACK LION]

I would like to add that not all "injuries" are permanently disabling or life threatening... but... all injuries are the same with the neurological/physiological response... and that disrupting function and keeping them busy while you continue your work...

 

[celtic_crippler]

It may not be a popular opinion, but in my experience there's no such animal.

If we're talking about true self defense, any effort you make that is not focused and violent only serves to give the attacker another opportunity to hurt you and increase the odds against you.

Unless you can read minds, you must take any threat made against you seriously. To do less increases the risk of personal harm or worse. If someone tells you they're going to kill you and you dismiss it, then who is to blame when you find yourself in the IC unit?

You have the right and freedom to choose not to take a threat seriously, I do not deny anyone that right but I also have the right to protect myself from percieved threats with action that I deem gives me the best chances of survival. I don't like to gamble so I prefer really good odds.

Therefore, given no alternative but physical confrontation, I will give 100% effort into hurting and eliminating a threat. To do less tilts the scales in the attacker's favor.

 

[MJS]

It may not be a popular opinion, but in my experience there's no such animal.

If we're talking about true self defense, any effort you make that is not focused and violent only serves to give the attacker another opportunity to hurt you and increase the odds against you.

Unless you can read minds, you must take any threat made against you seriously. To do less increases the risk of personal harm or worse. If someone tells you they're going to kill you and you dismiss it, then who is to blame when you find yourself in the IC unit?

You have the right and freedom to choose not to take a threat seriously, I do not deny anyone that right but I also have the right to protect myself from percieved threats with action that I deem gives me the best chances of survival. I don't like to gamble so I prefer really good odds.

Therefore, given no alternative but physical confrontation, I will give 100% effort into hurting and eliminating a threat. To do less tilts the scales in the attacker's favor.

Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"

Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL. But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"

Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL. But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.

The situation will in part dictate my reaction, so no...I probably wouldn't take somebody's eyeball for pushing me. LOL

...but they may not ever be able to breathe through thier nose again. :angel:
My point is that I don't believe there is a "non injurious, humane" way to truely defend yourself effectively.

Like I said, I know it's not the most popular position to have...but I don't like taking unnecessary chances.

I am a firm believer in personal responsibility so when no option is available (notice in my above post I mentioned when physical confrontation is unavoidable) and they knowingly and without coercion decided to become a threat to me...well then...they also freely chose the consequences.

I don't have the time or inclination to play paddy-cakes. I'm too old and my joints give me enough pain without risking further injury. I'm putting you down hard and fast.

As Joe Lansdale says, "Hit hard, hit fast, head to the house." Works for me. I'll leave you younger more idealistic folks to worry about whether you used too much force on a threat or not. LOL

 

[BLACK LION]

Part of me agrees with you, but the other part has me thinking that if Doc saw this, he'd say something along the lines of, "You're going to take someones eyes if all they do is push you?"

Yes, I know, we both come from a Kenpo background, so no, I dont have to tell you about the Kenpo techs. LOL. But, IMO, I think that we should be skilled enough to determine what we do/don't do. I'm not saying that we shouldn't overwhelm them with strikes, but what we do, is, IMO, something that we can control.

Our previous back and forths MJS have caused me to take a second look at "injuries" and I have since found myself on both sides.... The situation is the only true dictator of what teh level of force would be...
I can no longer look at all injuries as mortal or permanently debilitating becuase not all confrontations and conflicts warrant it... I was forced to instill the fact that all injuries are the same in the sense that it interrupts the neurological and physiological system... but not all injuries are the same in how,when and where they are applied...
Abroken rib may be appropriate whereas a crushed trachea may not and vice versa...
There are no safe targets but it does not have to be deadly to be useful...
The goal is trauma that changes function..

 

[celtic_crippler]

The goal is trauma that changes function..

The goal is to go home in one piece.

"In the end it matters not who is right, it matters who is left." - SGM Ed Parker.

 

[BLACK LION]

The goal is to go home in one piece.

"In the end it matters not who is right, it matters who is left." - SGM Ed Parker.

Understood and for most that is the case... but its what you do in those conflicting moments that will determine wether you will be eating with a fork or from a straw so to me the the priority is what is most imminent.
We all want to go home in one piece but first we have to get in there , get to work at causing effects in the opposition and get the f--- out of there.... then you can go home or to the bar or wherever you want... you earned it

 

[MJS]

The situation will in part dictate my reaction, so no...I probably wouldn't take somebody's eyeball for pushing me. LOL

...but they may not ever be able to breathe through thier nose again. :angel:
My point is that I don't believe there is a "non injurious, humane" way to truely defend yourself effectively.

Like I said, I know it's not the most popular position to have...but I don't like taking unnecessary chances.

I am a firm believer in personal responsibility so when no option is available (notice in my above post I mentioned when physical confrontation is unavoidable) and they knowingly and without coercion decided to become a threat to me...well then...they also freely chose the consequences.

I don't have the time or inclination to play paddy-cakes. I'm too old and my joints give me enough pain without risking further injury. I'm putting you down hard and fast.

As Joe Lansdale says, "Hit hard, hit fast, head to the house." Works for me. I'll leave you younger more idealistic folks to worry about whether you used too much force on a threat or not. LOL

Yes, I see your point. Someone will be hurt, hopefully it'll be the other guy. I was just saying that we should be able to control, dictate, etc. for lack of better words, what we do. Don't get me wrong...personally, I'd have no issues with giving a nice hard elbow to the face. I'm not going to try for a lock on someone who follows me into the parking lot, accusing me of cutting him off.

I think we're pretty much on the same page.