Then never study martial arts and just be a victim.
Tae Kwon Do obsolete for Self Defense
- Thread starter FearlessFreep
- Start date
Then never study martial arts and just be a victim.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 85
Fearless, what the military studies I really do not think is exactly what civilians study as for TKD. And more importantly, what the instructor emphsizes I doubt in the miliary is what the civilian instructors emphasize!
Just like we find 'Olympic' style TKD is not like traditional TKD, so is what the military in Korea study. This is very aken to what the USMC study for their martial arts program is very different than civilian schools (keep in mind they will be wearing all kinds of combat gear that we, or at least me, does not wear!)
Since TKD has the components of self defense and 'one step sparring', and it's not all sparring techniques, I'd have to say no. No more than any other martial art. Almost none teach legal aspects (Massad Ayoob does but then that's part of defensive shooting.)
TKD, like most orential arts, do not have alot of reality based training as for self defense. They tend to simply do technique instead of social encounters. And as I have found, the social encounter makes one look alot closer as to who is or is not the bad guy(s), how the situation is breaking, what to say/not say, how to keep track of all the players, how to cover ones blind side, etc.... And very very few martial arts have THAT as part of their course, even advanced Dan training.
Deaf
Or, of course, you could admit that, instead of being lucky, I actually read the situation correctly. Sure, I could have beaten his head in... and I could have gone to jail. Sure, I could have kicked his knees in... and lost a lawsuit that would have taken up my income for the rest of my life. Or I could do what I did - the minimum necessary to get away, while making sure that he wasn't going to do something else - and then, once I got safely to my car was driving away, it was over.
The thing about "could have" is that, like any situation where one person was present and another was not, you can always second-guess what happened. But the thing is - you weren't there, and you aren't me. What works for a 5'4" female may not work for a 6' male and vice versa; despite the increase of women in the MAs, it's still rather more of a shock when a woman does what I did than when a man does - but it did make the drunken sot realize that I was the wrong person to fool around with.
You want your partner to go to jail and/or get sued for overreacting - that's your choice. I'd rather avoid either. That's my choice. That doesn't make either of us wrong; it makes us different.
The US is an incredibly sue-happy society, and too many criminals have successfully sued people who hurt them while protecting themselves - and I don't want to be one of them. I will do the minimum necessary to leave a problem area intact and uninjured as quickly as possible, while remaining fully aware of possible continuing problems, but I am not going to beat the crap out of someone right off the bat because he might do something beyond what he's already done. That's irresponsible, dangerous, and could just as easily escalate the situation as not going all out to begin with - and much more likely to end in legal action against me, as the person who caused greater bodily harm. My chances are better because I'm female - but I'd still rather avoid it if I can.
kidswarrior
Senior Master
At the risk of being scoffed at, I'll share an anecdote. A martial arts master from China in the early 60s is said to have had a disagreement with a giant truck driver on the road. As they pulled over and met, the master reportedly said, 'Too bad, today you die.' The truck driver immediately turned on his heel without a word and went back to his truck.
Now I know this sounds like a line from a bad kung fu movie, and we've all heard fanciful stuff along these lines, but knowing something of the circumstances of this one has always given it the ring of truth to me. So I believe TKD, or whatever TMA, mastered so fully that the practitioner has complete faith in his or her ability over the situation, can actually serve to stave off physical attacks.
Iain Abernethy--a very pragmatic martial artist, by the way--puts it this way: A person who possesses high skill levels and an unshakable belief in their ability can cause (fear) in their opponents with as little as a glance. (Bunkai-Jutsu, p. 23). Again, I'd discount this except that I've known a very few people who actually seemed to have this ability. But then, I've lived a long time and met a lot of people.
Now I know this sounds like a line from a bad kung fu movie, and we've all heard fanciful stuff along these lines, but knowing something of the circumstances of this one has always given it the ring of truth to me. So I believe TKD, or whatever TMA, mastered so fully that the practitioner has complete faith in his or her ability over the situation, can actually serve to stave off physical attacks.
Iain Abernethy--a very pragmatic martial artist, by the way--puts it this way: A person who possesses high skill levels and an unshakable belief in their ability can cause (fear) in their opponents with as little as a glance. (Bunkai-Jutsu, p. 23). Again, I'd discount this except that I've known a very few people who actually seemed to have this ability. But then, I've lived a long time and met a lot of people.
Iain Abernethy--a very pragmatic martial artist, by the way--puts it this way: A person who possesses high skill levels and an unshakable belief in their ability can cause (fear) in their opponents with as little as a glance. (Bunkai-Jutsu, p. 23). Again, I'd discount this except that I've known a very few people who actually seemed to have this ability. But then, I've lived a long time and met a lot of people.
What about facing someone high or drunk? Or outnumbered? You'll need more than two eyes to stare down a gang.
With CCTV now in place and all that, I would just adopt a passive pose e.g. hands up (which protects the head) and then floor an aggressor if they don't back down. When footage is looked at by police it is clear that I was an intended victim who first tried to deflate the situation. There is also a distinct psycological advantage to this approach.
If you have to hit somebody to stop an attack, I would give it everything I have. To do otherwise is to lose an advantage. It brings back the saying "better to be tried by six than carried by 12".
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 176
Sure. I know of another situation where the guy threw a side kick just in front of someones face and the "wow" factor diffussed the situation. Still, it if was my missus Id still be mad, simply because of what could have happened!
Theres a big difference between doing whats needed to protect/defend yourself to beating someones head in. And as far as Im aware, in most countries 1. A grab is seen as an assault 2. You have the right to physically protect yourself in the realms of reasonable force!
Im not saying I am or was and when I look at these things I look in a general self defence context. You offered the story in a discussion about SD.. others will read that story and think "Hmm.. maybe thats the way to go about things like that" - I gave my opinion because I feel its dangerous as a general attitude towards SD. Like I said, Im glad it worked for you and it may well have been a case of doing everything appropriate for the situation.. but as a general way.. its a big no no IMO!
Yes and that gives woman a small tactical advantage!
thats preferable for being dead... yes!
Thats unfortunate, but to think of the law when danger is imminent begets defeat!
Again, theres big difference between 'hit & run' SD tactics and beating the crap out of someone! Theres an incredibly thick line between the two!
Alternatively it could leave you in a much more vunerable position that could have been avoided if someone acted differently from the offset!
Well, I hope if anything more serious happens to you, lawsuits are the last thing on your mind!
Stuart
How true, how true, how true. And what a sad and pathetic comentary on the state of the criminal justice system in our country.
Daniel
OP
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #29
I would think that the application of level(s) of force (Kacey & StuartA) would be a worthwhile discussion in it's own right
kidswarrior
Senior Master
All due respect, I think you missed my point--or maybe I didn't state it too well
. If you take my whole post as a piece, the point I was trying to make is that projecting a certain presence (not really a stare-down) can be enough to discourage bullies--even a group of them. But then, as I said, this is based on my experience and obviously will only ever work for a few truly exceptional people (not saying I'm one). But it can work.
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
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
GlassJaw
Orange Belt
Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is right to do it. That is why we have the power of judgment.
The perp has the right to hire an attorney and drag KC into court and try to convince a judge that Kacey's a bad-*** blackbelt who was just itching for the chance to beat on the first drunk she saw.
And then they would present a handful of witness testimonies to bring into question whether there was really any grab or if the poor drunk was just trying to defend himself.
And then they would demonstrate that the beating she gave went far beyond exercising her right to "protect herself within the realms of reasonable force" and instead was in the realm of dealing out punishment--something she does not have the right to do.
Unable to contest the "Assault with Intent" felony charge effectively, Kacey finds herself having to plead guilty to the lesser, just-as-bogus (but still very serious) misdemeanor of "Negligent Infliction of Harm to an Idiot within City Limits".
Next Kacey gets a call from the place where she holds practices saying that their liability insurance underwriters won't permit them to rent space to teachers who have assault convictions. Then she learns that the judge arbitrarily decided to add her name to the Sex Offenders Registry to prevent her from instructing minors.
Then she gets dragged into civil court where the perp tries to collect for medical expenses and mental anguish.
I'm not saying that it's always best to respond with only minimal stopping force--especially since it's seldom clear what level that is. (And avoidance purely for the sake of personal convenience is a piss-poor reason for not doing something that you know is right.) But every situation is different and proper course of action must be determined individually.
Dan
Well.. in that case Dan, I suggest next time anyone attacks or assaults us or our loved ones we just put our hands in our pockets, lie on the floor and let them get on with it! God forbid telling anyone to protect themsleves.. its all just to risky!
Stuart
Stuart
OP
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #34
Look in the Self Defense forum at the number of times when someone says "this happened to me and this is how I defended myself" and how many times the reply is "you got lucky, you should've just run away"
GlassJaw
Orange Belt
Who said anything about not protecting oneself? Throwing a warning strike to the skin of the opponent's nose with a verbal caution about what the follow-up will be like or even brandishing a 9mm and telling them to get lost is protecting oneself. In some situations, it might be a grossly insufficient means of protection; in others, it might be grossly excessive. Children in the schoolyard may not be able to tell the difference, but hopefully we can.
The ability to assess a situation is one of the most important SD skills there is.
Dan
A fox and a cat were sitting on a hill. A fox was saying what he'd do if the hounds ever chased him.. he might scratch them, might bite them, might run down a hole, might hide in a bush and lodas of other different options. The cat looked sad and said he only knew one way and that was to run up a tree!
The conversation changed and the day went on.
Suddenly a trumpet sounded, and lots of barking was heard in the near distance. It was the 'hunt'!
The barking drew nearer, the fox and the cat both got scared.. and suddenly the cat did the only thing it knew and ran up a tree, whilst the fox debated on what course of action to take.. should I do this, should I do that.. he couldnt decide... and in his hesitatation the hounds caught and chewed him to pieces!
Stuart
The conversation changed and the day went on.
Suddenly a trumpet sounded, and lots of barking was heard in the near distance. It was the 'hunt'!
The barking drew nearer, the fox and the cat both got scared.. and suddenly the cat did the only thing it knew and ran up a tree, whilst the fox debated on what course of action to take.. should I do this, should I do that.. he couldnt decide... and in his hesitatation the hounds caught and chewed him to pieces!
Oh I agree.. but thats all before it becomes physical.. when it becomes physical there should be a solid gameplan in place.. not decision making, but action. Physical altercations happen in fractions of a second, most people dont think that fast (kinda like the fox)!
Stuart
I think you may have missed my point!
BTW.. running away is a good solid option and preferable to physical altercation, but that area wasnt on par with the OP.
Stuart
kidswarrior
Senior Master
Maybe the most important. As we advance in the arts, we should be able to go beyond all/nothing, either/or type of thinking to a continuum/scale way of appraising risk.
I would advise others to evaluate the situation for themselves and determine the appropriate course of action - which may be what I did, and it may not. As I said, only those actually present in the situation can determine the appropriate response. In addition, for different people in identical situations, the response will nonetheless be different, as each person will bring different abilities, experiences, and perspectives to the same situation. I would not, however, ever recommend jumping immediately to the most drastic solution, as you seem to be doing - if only because I have been advised against it by a number of people, including one my students who is a judge, and suggested a warning strike (either of the type I used or something that makes it similarly evident that the person being attacked is not a pushover) before doing damage beyond the level of bruises - depending, of course, on the severity of the situation.
