After reading this entire thread, I declare everyone correct and everyone a winner
It seems in the case of self-defense...we're talking about the application of use of various tools, be they punches and kicks, or "attitude" or whatever. All are important and should be in one's SD "toolbox" as it were. In Kacey's example, she gives a reading of her harrasser and describes how she used a lesser level of force and the tools of surprise and intimidation to deescalate a situation successfully. Stuart then poses a scneario where that reading of the situation would have been a significant tactical error.
It all comes down to making an educated guess. If kacey's right, then an all out onslsught is an incorrect response that ruins ones life. However, if Stuart's correct, the lesser repsonse is the incorrect response that ruin's one life.
In the end, when confronted with situations we, as humans, must do what humans do best. We make a snap judgement based on our knowldge, training, understanding of the situation and then we react. good self-defrense then trains the body to react apporirately with the approiate level of force (the right tool at the right time). It all starts though with awareness. Good self defense (be it TKD, Krav Maga, joe's cool mcdojo karate or whatever) is bigger than the physical arts and goes beyond "rules" and guildelines about hwo one should respond to a situation.
In most respects. those advocating being ready and willign to put a hurting on an attacker are correct. if you can't strik with intent, you will be at a severe disadvantage in a slef defense sitation. those arguing for use of levels of force are also correct based on the poitn made earlier. In the end, each situation must be looked at inidividually and students shoudl be trained to think independently and with awareness at all times so as to maximise the chance the they will make the right decision at the right time.
Here's my story of doing everything wrongt and ti being the right thing...and why I'll NEVER do it again
I work as a therapist for a large non-profit org that provides residential treatment servbices for adolescents with intellectual disability and behavior disorders. I was new on the job and getting a handle on what I shoudl be doing (a very over-whelming task). The first thing I did was start interviewing my new co-workers to learn about my clients. I figured this info would prove useful in coming up with treatment plans and the like.
Anyways, my most problematic client was a young man I'll call Bill. Bill was famous for becoming aggressive at the drop of a hat and needing pretty significant pysical restraint (staff only...we don't use mehanical here). he was also famous for putting staf fon light duty due to his aggression.
In my interviews I learned the following things. Bill seemed to like the phsyicality of restraints...thus, restraints were reinforcing and should be avoided. He enjoyed getting management level staff involved and out of their offices in his incidents. He seemed to target some people over others. He tended to base his interactions wiht folks off of his initial meeting with them.
So, one day I'm in my office and sorting my stuff when Bill walks in. This is our first meeting. I introduce myself and he immediately puts up his fists and saya "Fight." good therapist that I am i decline and say I'm here to talk, I don't want to fight. he repeats hsi gesture and psutres even more for me. Since I think it's hard to do therapy with people that see tyou as someone who will hodl them down and wrestle them, I contine to decline. Bill leaves. So far, I'm following the text book here.
A few minutes later, Bill returns, he wants to fight and he is more emphatic. Now, I have a choice...it was clear by his body language and tone of voice that this was going to escalate. I SHOULD have called for assistance. He would've got upset and probably have been restrained by staff (not necessarily by me). However, knowing that this interaction was going to define our relationship, that any restraint woudl reinforce what was happeneing here and make it more likely to happen in the future...I chose to do all the wrong things.
I sized him up, wiry, strong, but I had a good 100lbs on him. I stood there, I let him hit me, He punched me HARD in the chest. I stood there. I said again "I'm not going to fight." He hit me again, harder (it bruised me). I again didn't do anything. After a third punch, Bill's shoulders slumped. It was like he deflated a bit. He sulked out of my office. In seven years I've only been involved in two physical incidents with him and I'm one of the few people that can talk him down when he gets going. he is still one of my most difficult cases, but by doing the wrong thing I got the right outcome.
Had I not had the info I had, my instict, my training....I would have follwoed the "rules" and made all the wrong choices. HOWEVER, the rules tend to exist because they cover a majority of cases it was just that this wasn't one of them.
What has this to do with TKD? I can take a hit. I can read someone intentions better in a conflict. Good self defense means knowing what to do, but also having the awareness to do what is necessary (even if it "breaks" the rules) at the time.
Peace,
Erik