A Real Life Adept In Action, Poetry In Motion Options

[Faelan]

Of which, the best strategy is to get away. Staying in a dangerous situation is just stupid.

Sometimes you cannot get away, in fact getting away by just running is most often impossible. Are you intentionally misreading what everyone is saying in order to argue? It certainly seems that way.

Now I know you're full of macho BS. You never know what an opponent is capable of. You're saying you can beat anyone, which amounts to the worst sort of machismo posturing in martial arts.

No, if you knew a damn thing about the subject you would have gotten it. I was saying I am fully confident in my ability. If I have assessed a situation to be best solved by confronting the source of danger, I have determined that fighting by whatever means is favorable. If that is the case I better damn well know that I can remove the threat. If you have no confidence in your skills why bother having them, why bother training, just go to a track and run all day.

Your kids need to be trained to run, then; and you need to run with them to protect them. Worst case scenario: there's more of them around the corner, and you just sent your kids to their deaths.

Your kids need to be trained to obey orders under duress. I know the worst case scenario is that you are being charged by 50 cannibal mutant gang members from all directions, and the way out is to run on air. Seriously get a grip on reality and stop creating new creative little situations in an attempt to strengthen your position, you are guilty of numerous logical fallacies throughout the last couple of posts keep it up.

I've already cited some, more of them are retired. They'll qualify everything exactly the way I've said. But go to any self-defense instructor, and they'll tell you that at worst, you disable an attacker then run. At best, you run and avoid it in the first place. In every case, however, you run.

Well until I have a conversation with these "MASTERS" or "Self Defense Instructors" I can't really quantify that what you are saying is the whole, unvarnished truth. If they say that without reservation, without quantifiers that you always run no matter the situation, and that that shoul dbe your over arching strategy, I will tell them they are retarded to their face. I suspect they are not. You cannot always run, you cannot always get away, and often the attempt to do so will be the primary factor that results in a negative outcome.

The best strategy isn't always implementable, but that doesn't mean it's not the single best strategy. Always stick to your basics, and the basic strategy is to run.

There is no best strategy. The best strategy is whatever works in a specific situation. The best strategy is determined by the situation, not the other way around. You are the only one here trying to distill this into a single rule which always applies, which is pure folly.

[Cain]

I was saying I am fully confident in my ability. If I have assessed a situation to be best solved by confronting the source of danger, I have determined that fighting by whatever means is favorable. If that is the case I better damn well know that I can remove the threat.

And, of course, there's no chance that you're ever wrong. It's easy to underestimate a fighter. But you're so full of machismo, there's no chance that you could be wrong when thousands of professional fighters are, damn near every day.

It's trivially easy to fool someone into underestimating you, especially when they're full of themselves. Does this quote ring a bell?: "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu-

There is no best strategy. The best strategy is whatever works in a specific situation. The best strategy is determined by the situation, not the other way around. You are the only one here trying to distill this into a single rule which always applies, which is pure folly.

No, that's having no exit strategy at all, and we all see how well that worked in Iraq. You need a strategy going in, and you sure as hell need one going out. Often, they're one and the same.

[Faelan]

And, of course, there's no chance that you're ever wrong. It's easy to underestimate a fighter. But you're so full of machismo, there's no chance that you could be wrong when thousands of professional fighters are, damn near every day.

Never said that. I can't spend my life living in fear, you clearly can. Note I have never said I would engage these individuals purely in hth, you are the one suggesting I would. Something can always go wrong. You could trip running away, of course you trust they won't do anything about you running away. I would simply prefer to trust myself and my ability, versus trusting that they will let me get away. You would rather trust them not to shoot you, run you down and stab you, or just plain old use a vehicle to cripple you and then deliver the beat down.

It's trivially easy to fool someone into underestimating you, especially when they're full of themselves.

Must be fun for you looking in the mirror every morning.

Does this quote ring a bell?: "All warfare is based on deception." -Sun Tzu-

Of course it does, problem is you clearly don't get the rest of the treatise. Do you really want to know how it all applies to situational awareness, and assorted combat techniques both armed and unarmed? You probably don't because you are attempting to distill everything into a singular rule, something only a fool would do, but the rest of us already knew that.

No, that's having no exit strategy at all, and we all see how well that worked in Iraq. You need a strategy going in, and you sure as hell need one going out. Often, they're one and the same.

If breaking someones knee allows me to continue doing what I was doing, how is this not an exit strategy. If getting in a car and driving away defuses the situation how is this not an exit strategy. If five guys jump you in a parking garage, and you are not Jackie Chan, and cant do acrobatic flips across vehicles how is disabling all of them not an exit strategy. If four guys surround you and beating them all down is the only way you can get away, how is it not an exit strategy. The situation purely dictates what the victory conditions for the situation are. Often you can't get away, and the greatest conceit is assuming you can run faster, I would rather trust in my strengths than my weaknesses. I am not a fast runner, I am strong though, have quick refelxes, and good hand eye coordination. I would stand and fight more often than run. If I was Usain Bolt I would probably believe otherwise. The point of self defense is to teach you how to use your strengths to assess a situation and survive, not serve up platitudes about how something always works, or give you some sort of BS Golden Rule of combat.

As to Iraq do we really want to get into how screwed up it was from the point where it first entered Cheney's mind, I don't think so.

[Wounded Ronin]

Bullies are not mystical wimps who always fold when confronted.

Relevant thread: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81682

[Cain]

I can't spend my life living in fear, you clearly can.

Weren't you the one talking about always talking about staying in Situational Awareness, condition Yellow? That means staying in a heightened state of "Fight or Flight". In other words, living in fear constantly.

Note I have never said I would engage these individuals purely in hth, you are the one suggesting I would.

That was in response to the question: "Do you honestly think you're guaranteed to take down even one attacker...." THe answer is, naturally, that you can't, and you're foolish to risk your children's lives on it.

You probably don't because you are attempting to distill everything into a singular rule, something only a fool would do, but the rest of us already knew that.

SUn Tzu and Mushashi did a good job of distilling down complex situations to simple rules. And besides, it's always been three rules, not one. The fool isn't the one who can distill wisdom to a simple rule, the fool is the one who still can't understand it.

If breaking someones knee allows me to continue doing what I was doing, how is this not an exit strategy.

Because you didn't go in planning on your actions. Situational awareness also calls for situational planning, you know. What you describe amounts to getting tossed into a situation, then going: "Dur... now what?"

Often you can't get away, and the greatest conceit is assuming you can run faster,

The greatest conceit is assuming you're Jet Li and can flip out on all the bad guys. Remember Rule 2, grasshopper! Break a hole so you can escape, and take it.

[Faelan]

Weren't you the one talking about always talking about staying in Situational Awareness, condition Yellow? That means staying in a heightened state of "Fight or Flight". In other words, living in fear constantly.

Uhmmm no I was not, so why don't you learn to stop putting words in peoples mouths. Anyway you advocate a constant flight policy, lets not talk about anything else just run. That spells fear to me, if you won't even consider other options.

That was in response to the question: "Do you honestly think you're guaranteed to take down even one attacker...." THe answer is, naturally, that you can't, and you're foolish to risk your children's lives on it.

And you are foolish to trust that turning your back on these strangers and running with your kids is any better of an option.

SUn Tzu and Mushashi did a good job of distilling down complex situations to simple rules. And besides, it's always been three rules, not one. The fool isn't the one who can distill wisdom to a simple rule, the fool is the one who still can't understand it.

Yes they did distill things down to their essence, and it still took them an entire book to do so. Your three rule set is made of fail, because it does not always apply. I wish you and yours the best of luck living with those rules, they certainly would not work for me, and many others I know. I guess you should be happy you live in a world where you can trust strangers to let you run away.

Because you didn't go in planning on your actions. Situational awareness also calls for situational planning, you know. What you describe amounts to getting tossed into a situation, then going: "Dur... now what?"

You have clearly not been mugged before. It is generally conducted from ambush or surprise, good luck with your running, since apparently that is the thought you can cram into a sudden situation.

The greatest conceit is assuming you're Jet Li and can flip out on all the bad guys. Remember Rule 2, grasshopper! Break a hole so you can escape, and take it.

Who said anyone was Jet Li. Once again you misrepresent, twist, add to what has been said to try and prove your point. The fact that running is only one option among many seems to be too much for you to deal with, please explain why?

[Rad]

Take the whole intelligent creation vs evolution debate. One side says that it's some divine being that made everything by design and sheer awesomeness and the other side says that a pool of snot and a lightning bolt did the deed. Neither is observable or testable (read: actually scientific) but boy will these people get nasty about the whole affair.

And I'm not a sparring man, myself. Self-defense (hopefully) doesn't involve two people agreeing to terms and warming up before they go at it an an attempt to make things all nicey-nicey and somewhat safe for each other. I prefer the ol' 80-lumens slap in the retinas followed quickly by a 230gr JHP double tap, a poke to the neck followed by a groin or hamstring slash, or a biuji to the eyes, to trapping, to strike with the flashlight to the jaw joint followed a potential takedown.

Nah, debating with creationists is like sparring with an untrained quadriplegic. That's a little too one-sided for my tastes.

And of course there is a difference between sparring and self defense, I just happen to enjoy both. Ironically, I'm much better at self-defense. It's harder when you have to hold back.

So, in other words, you believe what you see, and not what science tells you? How's that flat earth working for you, anyway? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

I've seen the curve of the earth. Besides, science tells us to believe what we can empirically verify, not what we've been told.

Your arguments lack logic and reasoning--not uncommon these days. To put it simply: You don't know how to fight with words.

I've been repeating my position that turning to run leaves you more vulnerable than standing your ground, and so far you've yet to provide the obvious retort: Run to the side. Won't work as well against a group, which was what the original argument was about, but against a single attacker running left or right allows you to put distance between you and them without having to make a full 180 degree turn first.

To put it another way, I've been intentionally leaving an opening, and you've yet to take advantage of it.

The fact that you don't seem to be aware of the risks in turning your back to run, or the ways of minimizing those risks, implies a limited understanding of self defense situations. I'm not saying that's the case, maybe you're just a poor debater. Or perhaps you're a skilled martial artist with a flawed understanding of the principles of self defense. Hell, maybe you're just messing with us to keep the debate going, I've seen that happen too.

I taught her to run and scream from strangers. I didn't expect her to use it on me, but as least I know the lesson took.

Ah, so she turned around and used it on you unexpectedly? Now you see why some people might ignore that as just a kid acting up. Kind of reinforces the old adage that every technique you teach your student, they may one day use on you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Nothing works *all* of the time. If you waste time training for situations that never happen, you'll lose time training for the situations that will happen.

If you don't see the value in training for unrealistically difficult situations, perhaps you really don't understand self-defense. Consider this:

One guy trains in a mat-floored, air-conditioned dojo, wearing socks and a karate gi.

Another guy trains on the breakwater wearing street clothes and exercise weights. The rocks are sharp, wet, and uneven. The sun is oppressively hot and the waves and wind keep trying to knock him off-balance.

They meet in a rainy alley and fight--who do you think has the advantage? The second guy has trained for bad footing and inclement weather, the dojo guy hasn't. The second guy has also practiced fighting while carrying alot more weight than he currently has on, while the dojo-trainee may find his street clothes (especially the shoes) are heavier and less suited for fighting than his gi.

You train for ridiculously difficult situations because A) you'll be more ready for it if it does happen, and B) every disadvantage you trained for that *isn't* present in a real life situation becomes an advantage for you.

Try this experiment: Find a friend to train and spar with, and have one of you wear a set of wrist and ankle weights. You can find a good 2-5 lb set in the sporting goods department. Keep training together for about a week, doing the same exercises and activities. Now have the guy wearing the weights take them off, and tell me whether training to fight with 2-5 lbs strapped to your limbs was a waste of time.

Try this little experiment. Have a friend throw a quarter at you, and see how often you can catch it. Now, have him throw it at his shoulder, same speed and everything, and see how often you can catch it. In addition to the distance factor, your reactions aren't trained to deal with non-incoming objects.

I'm trying to understand what this is supposed to prove. It's always harder to catch an object you throw at yourself because you have to go from a throwing motion to a catching one, rather than standing ready to catch from the start. If you're trying to show the effects of distance, you should have the friend throw a (soft) object at you while you try to dodge it. Note how often you succeed, then have them move closer and try it again.

Better yet. Have you friend stand a certain distance away with a water ballon. On a signal from a third party, they try to hit you with the water-balloon while you try to dodge. Now try it again, but instead of trying to dodge, turn around and try to run when you hear the signal.

Weren't you the one talking about always talking about staying in Situational Awareness, condition Yellow? That means staying in a heightened state of "Fight or Flight". In other words, living in fear constantly.

Fight-or-flight is condition red. If you're there, you've screwed up. Yellow is: "I am aware of the situation and still able to make a rational assessment of my options."

The greatest conceit is assuming you're Jet Li and can flip out on all the bad guys. Remember Rule 2, grasshopper! Break a hole so you can escape, and take it.

There, he just advocated our point. Moving on. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Cain]

Anyway you advocate a constant flight policy, lets not talk about anything else just run. That spells fear to me, if you won't even consider other options.

Nope, but try again. Your strategy needs to be: Escape. What tactics are used to achieve that strategy will vary by circumstance. However, saying there's always going to be situations where you should not plan for escape, so you should never do it, is just moronic.

And you are foolish to trust that turning your back on these strangers and running with your kids is any better of an option.

You only need trust when you lack fact. Fact: if we're not there, they can;t hurt us. Fact: standing there and posturing is going to get either you or your kids hurt.

I wish you and yours the best of luck living with those rules, they certainly would not work for me, and many others I know.

I wish you and yours the best in the hospital, where you'll end up if you don't make plans for escape. I guess seeing your children in pain must work for you.

You have clearly not been mugged before. It is generally conducted from ambush or surprise, good luck with your running, since apparently that is the thought you can cram into a sudden situation.

I have been mugged. I threw my wallet and ran. I stayed safe, my child stayed safe, and there was no need to prove I was a macho man.

The fact that running is only one option among many seems to be too much for you to deal with, please explain why?

You misunderstand the distinction between strategy and tactics. When faced in self-defense, there is only one effective strategy: Escape. Run away. What tactics are necessary to achieve that strategy vary from situation to situation.

I've been repeating my position that turning to run leaves you more vulnerable than standing your ground, and so far you've yet to provide the obvious retort: Run to the side. Won't work as well against a group, which was what the original argument was about, but against a single attacker running left or right allows you to put distance between you and them without having to make a full 180 degree turn first.

That depends on a complex equasion based on where the nearest exit is located. Sometimes, that 180-turn to a nearby exit may be more effective than a long end-run to either side. I've always assumed that when you run, you run for safety, which could be anywhere.

You train for ridiculously difficult situations because A) you'll be more ready for it if it does happen, and B) every disadvantage you trained for that *isn't* present in a real life situation becomes an advantage for you.

Not at the expense of basics! I've seen a few guys (Temple Kung Fu comes to mind) that trained ridiculous moves for unlikely situations, and left their basics in the dust. (True story: an *instructor* told me that I needed to learn jump-spinning kicks in case I ever got both arms and one leg broken in a fight. And he was serious!)

I'm trying to understand what this is supposed to prove.

It's supposed to prove that it's harder to intercept things going away from you than coming at you. A human might reflexively catch a ball thrown at his own face. But he'd have a hell of a time catching a ball he threw away from himself.

Fight-or-flight is condition red. If you're there, you've screwed up. Yellow is: "I am aware of the situation and still able to make a rational assessment of my options."

"Flight or fight" isn't quite what you think it is. It describes various states of stress, and the physiological reactions that underlie them. To go to your "condition yellow", you still have to activate heavy amounts of the parasympathetic nervous system-- in other words, you need to be afraid.

[psychophipps]

"Flight or fight" isn't quite what you think it is. It describes various states of stress, and the physiological reactions that underlie them. To go to your "condition yellow", you still have to activate heavy amounts of the parasympathetic nervous system-- in other words, you need to be afraid.

The Situational Awareness Color Code:

Code White

* You feel secure, whether or not you are actually safe.
* Awareness is switched off.
* You are unaware of your environment, its inhabitants, and their rituals of attack.
* All attackers look for victims in this state.

Code Yellow

* You are cautious. You should spend most of the time in this state.
* Awareness is switched on.
* State of threat awareness and relaxed alertness.
* You have a 360-degree peripheral awareness of such environmental danger spots as secluded doorways, entries, and alleys, as well as such psychological triggers as adrenal dump and attacker ruses. Be aware of people, vehicles, behind large objects, dark areas, etc.

Code Orange

* You are in danger. You are aware of a potential threat.
* State of threat evaluation.
* Specific alert. A possible target has been identified. A particular situation that has drawn your attention and could present a major problem. Someone may be giving oral indicators such as direct threats or using suspicious language. Focus on the potential attacker.
* Check to see if there is an avenue of escape, potential weapons available, and if others around you are friend or foe.
* Decision is made to take action.

Code Red

* You are in conflict.
* State of threat avoidance.
* Fight or flight. Flee, defend, or attack. You have evaluated the situation, and if there is a threat, you prepare to fight or run.
* Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing.
* Carry out decision to act made in Code Orange. You don't have to think; no indecision on the course of action; you are prepared.
* If use of physical self-defense techniques is necessary, use the level of force appropriate to the threat. E.g., don't treat someone who pushes you because he is rude like someone who is trying to stab you with a knife.

Just figured that it's better if you could argue from a position of knowledge here. As a martial artist from the teachers that you have stated, you really should be spending most of your time in Condition Yellow out of pure reflex just from what these people have drilled into you for years on end. If this isn't the case...well, I'm sorry that you didn't learn the truly important stuff from that long list of truly excellent instructors.

[Cain]

Ah, apologies. Misunderstood your codes; I thought you were talking about the equivalent of a perpetual Code Orange, in your terms.

However, I'll point out one thing--

* Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing.

--is basically what I've been saying all along.

[psychophipps]

I'm thinking that we simply have a different definition of "self defense situation". Yours seems to be, "having to react to a potential threat in any manner" while mine is "having to engage in verbal and/or physical self-defense methods". Both are valid, it's just a difference in perspective.

[Faelan]

The Situational Awareness Color Code:

Code White

* You feel secure, whether or not you are actually safe.
* Awareness is switched off.
* You are unaware of your environment, its inhabitants, and their rituals of attack.
* All attackers look for victims in this state.

Code Yellow

* You are cautious. You should spend most of the time in this state.
* Awareness is switched on.
* State of threat awareness and relaxed alertness.
* You have a 360-degree peripheral awareness of such environmental danger spots as secluded doorways, entries, and alleys, as well as such psychological triggers as adrenal dump and attacker ruses. Be aware of people, vehicles, behind large objects, dark areas, etc.

Code Orange

* You are in danger. You are aware of a potential threat.
* State of threat evaluation.
* Specific alert. A possible target has been identified. A particular situation that has drawn your attention and could present a major problem. Someone may be giving oral indicators such as direct threats or using suspicious language. Focus on the potential attacker.
* Check to see if there is an avenue of escape, potential weapons available, and if others around you are friend or foe.
* Decision is made to take action.

Code Red

* You are in conflict.
* State of threat avoidance.
* Fight or flight. Flee, defend, or attack. You have evaluated the situation, and if there is a threat, you prepare to fight or run.
* Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing.
* Carry out decision to act made in Code Orange. You don't have to think; no indecision on the course of action; you are prepared.
* If use of physical self-defense techniques is necessary, use the level of force appropriate to the threat. E.g., don't treat someone who pushes you because he is rude like someone who is trying to stab you with a knife.

Excellent post. Thanks for articulating what most of us were surely trying to say. I would like to say that the "Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing.", should actually be "Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing SAFELY." Anyway thanks for putting an end to the tit for tat.

[Wounded Ronin]

Cain, did you just bring up Temple Kung Fu as an example of martial arts training? I thought that was a Sinophilic LARP association.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22636

[psychophipps]

Nah, debating with creationists is like sparring with an untrained quadriplegic. That's a little too one-sided for my tastes.

Well, my friend, you have been debating with the wrong creationists. You get one that knows their stuff, like I had the distinct pleasure of a while back, and you'll see a whole new reality as to the validity of the ol' neo-darwinian/naturalist theory of the history of the world.

[Cain]

Cain, did you just bring up Temple Kung Fu as an example of martial arts training? I thought that was a Sinophilic LARP association.

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=22636

Sorry, I may have inadvertently seemed like I was treating them seriously. Apologies.

"Never stand or fight if there is a possibility of fleeing SAFELY."

No, sorry, but wrong. Just being in a potential self-defense situation exposes you to risk, running nearly always exposes you to less danger. Sure, there's some danger in running, but it's generally less than standing and fighting. If you only run when it's 100% safe, you end up in a lot of fights and getting hurt a lot.

The point I want to make is, it doesn't end there. OK, let's even say that the other guy has you trapped, the only way to get to the exit is through him. You make an attack, and now you've disabled your attacker. What do you do next? Too many martial arts and self-defense styles will have you concentrate on finishing the attacker. No! You need to run!

There's also not enough attention paid to the avoidance stage, namely: get attention. Scream "Free Beer!' at the top of your lungs. Do whatever you can to make is so you don't have to face an attacker alone, as the only combatant.

[Faelan]

No, sorry, but wrong. Just being in a potential self-defense situation exposes you to risk, running nearly always exposes you to less danger. Sure, there's some danger in running, but it's generally less than standing and fighting. If you only run when it's 100% safe, you end up in a lot of fights and getting hurt a lot.

Read what I wrote, read it. You might realize you are making stuff up and then saying I said something I did not. There is a lot of danger in running, the second you move away from assuming this is an unarmed confrontation, and depending on the range of the confrontation.

The point I want to make is, it doesn't end there. OK, let's even say that the other guy has you trapped, the only way to get to the exit is through him. You make an attack, and now you've disabled your attacker. What do you do next? Too many martial arts and self-defense styles will have you concentrate on finishing the attacker. No! You need to run!

In many martial arts that finishing move takes less than a second to complete, and is often a follow through for a disabling move. Do you want a somewhat disabled attacker with potentially lethal weapons (such as a gun) behind you or a corpse?

There's also not enough attention paid to the avoidance stage, namely: get attention. Scream "Free Beer!' at the top of your lungs. Do whatever you can to make is so you don't have to face an attacker alone, as the only combatant.

This I agree with. Avoidance starts long before that, it starts when you see individuals projecting a bad vibe with their body language, and you decide to alter your course, duck into a bar, step into an entryway, stay near a group of people, etc.

[psychophipps]

In many martial arts that finishing move takes less than a second to complete, and is often a follow through for a disabling move. Do you want a somewhat disabled attacker with potentially lethal weapons (such as a gun) behind you or a corpse?

Dacascos lost a cousin this way, in fact. He had punched some guy up a bit and after his attacker fell, the cousin wasn't in a position to keep the attacker from pulling a gun from his waistband and shooting him. This is why the Wun Hop Kun Do people are all taught to end an attack string up over their assailant's head and from behind, if they can manage it.

[Rad]

Well, my friend, you have been debating with the wrong creationists. You get one that knows their stuff, like I had the distinct pleasure of a while back, and you'll see a whole new reality as to the validity of the ol' neo-darwinian/naturalist theory of the history of the world.

Huh, really? Seems like it'd be a hard point to argue--lack of evidence and all that. It would be really nice to find someone who could do it though, I always like a good debate.

[Cain]

Dacascos lost a cousin this way, in fact. He had punched some guy up a bit and after his attacker fell, the cousin wasn't in a position to keep the attacker from pulling a gun from his waistband and shooting him. This is why the Wun Hop Kun Do people are all taught to end an attack string up over their assailant's head and from behind, if they can manage it.

Or on their spine, if it's accessible. But they're also taught one attack string, then retreat if successful.

Do you want a somewhat disabled attacker with potentially lethal weapons (such as a gun) behind you or a corpse?

See the situational awareness rules above. If a guy pushes you, you don't assume he has a gun and kill him. Respond with appropriate force, then run away.

This I agree with. Avoidance starts long before that, it starts when you see individuals projecting a bad vibe with their body language, and you decide to alter your course, duck into a bar, step into an entryway, stay near a group of people, etc.

Agreed. I consider avoidance to be part of running away, and stopping a fight before it starts is always a smart move.

[Faelan]

I think this is just a case of internet misunderstanding.

[hyzmarca]

Well, if you do kill a guy for pushing you, you should probably retreat anyway. You know, before the cops arrive.

But, you know, sometimes drawing a gun and shooting a guy forty times is safer than running. Not necessarily appropriate, just safer. But, if Usain Bolt brandishes a Fairbairn-Sykes at you, you pretty much don't have any choice but to go for the kill.

Really, if you know that someone is trying to kill you and will continue to do so, and you're in a position to kill that person yourself, and are relatively positive that doing so will not make him more powerful than you can imagine or otherwise allow him to come back as some sort of supernatural being, then killing him when you have the chance and it is legally appropriate to do so would be the safest course of action over the long term.
This is an important consideration. If escaping today will just lead to another attempt on your life tomorrow, then simply knocking him down and running isn't acceptable or reasonable. If you can disable for long enough to safely flee, then you can disable for long enough to safely kill. And killing prevents all future violence, assuming that there are no supernatural forces or reanimating viruses involved.


There is a difference between some dude and a mortal enemy, and you treat them differently.

And there is a difference between lethal and less-lethal altercations. If someone is using lethal force against you with the intent to kill, then it is usually safer to use lethal force against them with similar intent than it is to simply try to subdue them. You shouldn't pull your punches in that situation.

And sometimes one might feel a moral obligation to continue to prosecute an attack rather than running. If attacked by a notorious serial killer or serial rapist, for example, getting him the ground and taking his weapon away and then retreating, allowing him to escape and ply his trade on someone else, might not be acceptable. Many people would find it better to ensure that he doesn't escape, either by restraining him until the police arrive, or by finishing the combat decisively and finally.

And, of course, if you're a parent of a child who has a mental disorder that produces suicidal impulses, it probably isn't a good idea to leave that kid alone with a deadly weapon in hand, even if retreating is safer for you.

And, on the issue of facilitating escape, you want to do that as safely as possible rather than with as little force as possible. If a maniac is brandishing a knife at you, you might respond by knocking him down, disarming him, and running away. But it's a heck of a lot safer to just shoot him many times in the chest, usually. The 15 foot rule is kind of a problem there, because is the easy with which someone can stab you before you ready the firearm. But shooting is most certainly safer than punching when faced with a knifeman. Or a swordsman.

And, really, if the greatest sprinter in the world attacks you with the greatest fighting knife ever made, you're screwed, but you might as well try to kill him first.

[Cain]

That's an awful lot of if's there, Hyz.

Getting into lethal vs non-lethal attacks goes into hugely complex legal matters. Even if it's in self-defense, you could be found guilty of murder. It's safer for you to not kill, and let the cops handle matters; "safer" being in a legal sense of the word.

If attacked by a notorious serial killer or serial rapist, for example, getting him the ground and taking his weapon away and then retreating, allowing him to escape and ply his trade on someone else, might not be acceptable. Many people would find it better to ensure that he doesn't escape, either by restraining him until the police arrive, or by finishing the combat decisively and finally.

Exactly how you'd recognize someone as a notorious serial killer or rapist is the question, here. I doubt you could pick Ted Bundy or Gary Ridgeway out of a lineup, and they're probably the most prolific serial killers in modern history. What I think you're referring to is someone you know/suspect harmed you or your loved one. And that is no longer a self-defense situation, it is vengeance.

And, of course, if you're a parent of a child who has a mental disorder that produces suicidal impulses, it probably isn't a good idea to leave that kid alone with a deadly weapon in hand, even if retreating is safer for you.

That also ceases to be a self-defense situation, and turns into something else. Rad might have a word for it. But yes, it isi safer and smarter to retreat in that situation, and come back with backup and/or restraining equipment.

[hyzmarca]

Actually, the serial killer example I was thinking of, perhaps, someone with a rather obvious signature. Let's say you've got someone called The Park Strangler, who strangles people in parks. And while you're are walking in a park someone attempts to strangle you. It doesn't take a rocket science to put too and two together.

I mean, if someone tried to shoot you with a .44 when you're sitting in a parked car with your girlfriend in New York in the summer of 1976, there is a pretty good chance that it's the Son of Sam. Of course, it would be foolish to attempt to subdue someone who is armed with a .44, unless you're counting and know that he expended all six bullets.

When you know that The Stabbity Luchadore is on the prowl, you might as well assume that the guy who attacks you with a knife while wearing a luchadore mask could be him.

As for the lethal vs. non-lethal, there is an old adage that it is better to be judge by 12 than carried by 6. In other words, survive the encounter first and worry about the legal repercussions later.

The quintessential must-shoot situation I gave, a recent Olympic Gold Medal sprinter wielding the ultimate British people-killing knife with the intent to slay you, requires either lethal force or absurd anti-knife skills to survive (a taser might also work, but that's a little iffy.). It isn't likely that you'll be attacked by an Olympic Gold Medalist or that an attacker will have such a cool combat knife, but the principle remains the same in any situation where you are faced with someone who truly intends to end you and has the capability to do so immediately. If you go for the minimum necessary force to survive, you risk undershooting it. If you go for the maximum necessary force, you risk overshooting it. Using too much force means that someone who was in the process of attempting to kill you died needlessly. Using too little force means you died. It isn't a time to hold back.

This kind of thing is rare and doesn't happen often. When it does it is usually either someone who knows you and doesn't like you, or someone who is completely and totally insane. I can feel bad for the latter, but I still don't want to die or risk dying. And not risking death means neutralizing the threat with the greatest efficiency possible. And that usually means shooting it multiple times in the chest.

Dealing with the police is a different matter. You need to know what to say and how to say it. And you need to know the buzzwards. The important thing to do is to communicate the imminent and deadly nature of the threat, that you actually feared for your life, and that safe retreat was impossible, in duty to retreat states.

[psychophipps]

Huh, really? Seems like it'd be a hard point to argue--lack of evidence and all that. It would be really nice to find someone who could do it though, I always like a good debate.

The issue isn't "proving it", as the naturalists/neo-darwinians also have yet to do, it's taking the entirety of the information available and realizing that the Theory of Evolution as known by most people via the mass media is a complete crock. There is a blatant widespread case of ignoring the raw facts in mathematics, geology, archaeology, radiology, genetics, chemistry...you name it...by the scientific community at large in continuing to push the Big Bang and similar naturalist theories of creation. I'm not saying to buy into the Bible and it's version, I'm just saying that the "other side of the fence" as most people recognize it is 95% speculative garbage that isn't supported by true science or confirmed fact but everyone treats it like it is....y'know, kinda like religions and stuff.

We can continue this in PMs if you want to...

[Cain]

Using too much force means that someone who was in the process of attempting to kill you died needlessly. Using too little force means you died. It isn't a time to hold back.

Using too much force could mean you get executed by the state for murder. Six of one, hand-dozen of the other.

It's rare that someone escalates on you, unless you do so first. You finish appropriate to the incoming force; if that changes, you up the ante as well. But not until then.