A Real Life Adept In Action, Poetry In Motion Options

[Method]

Fewer movements + greater efficiency = better, as a general rule

Thats one of the fundamental concepts of modern combatives like MCMAP. When your sympathetic nervous system kicks in your ability to coordinate fine motor movements goes right down the shitter. Any system designed to be effective with minimal training has to be built on gross motor movements by necessity.

[ruff0126]

Not just "simple" movements. Their is also quite a bit of thought and practice put in to being able to use most manuvers while armed and/or injured/exuasted. As well as softening blows such as throat strikes, eye gouges, and other generally painful manuvers.

[Zhan Shi]

In the spirit of the videos posted above: When you`re in a real fight, beware the fancy moves...

I guess I can cross capoeira off my list of potential martial arts to study. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Cain]

The Oom Yung Doe place down the road from my house closed about a month ago. I was always wary of them because of the "omg flying kickz" pictures in their window. I'm glad to see my suspicion confirmed.

Thank gods for small favors. Was that the one on Greenwood? You can google "Oom Yung Doe" and get the whole sordid history of the school. I believe it was declared a cult under the name of "Chung Moo Doe", and closed down in a different state, thus forcing the name change.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I have to say that Faelan misses an important point. The best thing to do when confronted by multiple opponents is to get the hell out of there, as quickly as possible. Focusing on naked aggression, which not everyone will be able to attain, makes you ignore potential avenues for escape. Focusing on naked fear, and running away, is a smarter thing to do. Sure, it's not as glorious, but you'll be a hell of a lot safer.

It's different for soldiers, who may have to defend their lives in a fight; the vast majority of us will never need to face a skilled opponent in a serious fight. Learning to fight like a soldier, or to fight trained martial artists, is a waste of time from the standpoint of effective self-defense. Learning to disable the opposition just enough so you can get away should be the goal.

[Adarael]

Nah, the Greenwood one is still there, or was two weeks ago. This one was on Mercer in Queen Anne, next to "Hair Concierge" - possibly the best named barbershop EVER.

I looked 'em up after you mentioned them by name. Their whole crazy-ass "herbal implements" training sounds eating-paint-chips crazy.

[Wounded Ronin]

Come on Wounded Ronin!! I expect more than that from you of all people!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

They were all wearing hakama. I blame their dismal performance on aikido training. Too much compliant drills and training has built up insurmountable reflexes where whenever Jet Li mimes an attack they throw themselves to the ground as dramatically as possible. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

[Rad]

ROTFL

More seriously, I don't buy the "run away" argument. You have to incapacitate your opponent(s) first. The moment you turn your back to run, you leave yourself completely open. Running does not stop the attack, or prevent them from following you, or pulling out a gun and shooting you in the back. What it does do is burn energy, severely impair your awareness and ability to respond to the situation, and maybe delay combat.

Personally, I find the best thing to do when facing multiple opponents is position yourself and try to talk them down. If you can dissuade a few from attacking, good for you, if not, the talking can often serve as a distraction while you keep your distance and look for an opening. Trying to talk your way out also makes you seem like less of a threat, which can make your opponents underestimate you.

[Cain]

More seriously, I don't buy the "run away" argument. You have to incapacitate your opponent(s) first. The moment you turn your back to run, you leave yourself completely open. Running does not stop the attack, or prevent them from following you, or pulling out a gun and shooting you in the back. What it does do is burn energy, severely impair your awareness and ability to respond to the situation, and maybe delay combat.

I don't buy the macho BS of needing to beat the other guy in order to have effective self-defense. If the guy's got the mindset to pull out a gun and shoot you in the back, he's just as likely to pull it out and shoot you in the face. Distance is your best friend.

If you can get away without incapacitating an opponent, you should do so. Your first thought should not be: "How can I take this guy down?", but rather: "How can I get out of this in one piece?" Too many people focus on getting into it, rather than getting away.

Fact of the matter is, in reality, if you run before the other guy can instigate an attack, you'll probably stop the fight before it starts. He's not going to chase you unless he's really determined; and if he's that pissed, he'll have already attacked. Hand-to-hand combat is for after the other guy has attacked you, and *then* you move to incapacitate. But only enough to make sure he can't chase you, and then you run.

Basically, it works like this:

Rule 1: If you can run, run.

Rule 2: If you cannot run, do whatever it takes to make sure you can run.

Rule 3: See Rule 1.

Personally, I find the best thing to do when facing multiple opponents is position yourself and try to talk them down. If you can dissuade a few from attacking, good for you, if not, the talking can often serve as a distraction while you keep your distance and look for an opening. Trying to talk your way out also makes you seem like less of a threat, which can make your opponents underestimate you.

This I agree with. Except you shouldn't look for an opening, you should look for an exit. Particularly when faced with multiple opponents. This isn't a Jackie Chan movie, and you're not Bruce Lee. You don't want to have to fight multiple opponents, and you don't want to try and incapacitate all of them before you make your escape.

[Rad]

You misunderstood. I'm not talking about macho BS, I'm talking about practical self defense. I agree it's better to avoid actual combat if possible, your only goal should be to prevent yourself from being harmed--I don't believe the "run first, respond second" approach is the best way to do that.

If you think they won't follow or attack if you run, that's a risk you might be willing to take, but it's not the safest option. Waiting for an opponent to attack you is bad. Turning your back and rendering yourself unaware and unable to respond at all is worse. As for pulling a gun, if you are facing them you will be aware of the attack and can respond to it. You can attempt to prevent them from drawing the weapon, take cover, or try to move out of the line of fire. All of which have a better chance of success than hoping you can turn around and get far enough away for it to matter in the time it takes them to draw and shoot.

Of course, if you can defuse the situation or get away safely, that is ideal. Looking for an opening does not just mean looking for an opening to attack, it also means looking for an opening to get away, but trying to run while out in the open is just dropping your guard.

Otherwise, you have to strike first, not because it's macho or bad-ass, but because you have a better chance of stopping your opponent if their fist isn't already flying at you. If you wait for them to attack first, you lose reaction time and have to hope you can either avoid the strike or hit faster than an attack which is already in progress--which is never a certainty.

Not looking for openings just means blinding yourself to your options, which puts you at a disadvantage. Not doing your best to incapacitate an opponent when the opportunity presents itself just means giving them another chance to harm you.

It's not pretty, it's not nice, and it's not usually legal, it is simply practical.

[Cain]

If you think they won't follow or attack if you run, that's a risk you might be willing to take, but it's not the safest option. Waiting for an opponent to attack you is bad. Turning your back and rendering yourself unaware and unable to respond at all is worse.

Not being within attack range of the guy is best. Creating distance is your safest bet, and running is the best way to create distance. If you can't run safely, then you can't run, and you resort to Rule 2. But you should look to run away first, as your primary response.

As for pulling a gun, if you are facing them you will be aware of the attack and can respond to it. You can attempt to prevent them from drawing the weapon, take cover, or try to move out of the line of fire. All of which have a better chance of success than hoping you can turn around and get far enough away for it to matter in the time it takes them to draw and shoot.

If you are close enough to them to do something about the gun, you are also within point-blank range, where they are unlikely to miss. You can do things about the gun, if you are close enough and fast enough; but your best defense against a gun is also distance. Cover is nice if you have it, and can get to it in time, but that's not something you can count on. OTOH, distance is always available to you.

Besides which, unless they're a trained marksman, anyone using a gun under real-world conditions tends to shoot like a spastic monkey. They can hit you if you're close-- the number I hear bandied about is that most hits come from within 15 feet-- so you don't need a lot of space. If they are a trained marksman who can accurately hit a moving target at range under combat conditions, you're probably dead anyway.

Otherwise, you have to strike first, not because it's macho or bad-ass, but because you have a better chance of stopping your opponent if their fist isn't already flying at you. If you wait for them to attack first, you lose reaction time and have to hope you can either avoid the strike or hit faster than an attack which is already in progress--which is never a certainty.

If you strike first, there is a 100% chance that you will expose yourself to danger. If you talk or run, there is a much higher chance that you will face no risk at all. There is no way you can be 100% positive that you can disable all your opponents. Again, this is not a martial-arts action film, fighting a lot of enemies is not easy-- in fact, it's downright dangerous!

Additionally, a lot of attacks (I'm thinking rape defense, here) come from people the victim knows. You can't attack Uncle Albert just because he's acting weird, you need a good reason. Defending and running is the best way of handling the situation, assuming that you can't defuse the situation.

Not looking for openings just means blinding yourself to your options, which puts you at a disadvantage. Not doing your best to incapacitate an opponent when the opportunity presents itself just means giving them another chance to harm you.

It's not pretty, it's not nice, and it's not usually legal, it is simply practical.

Not looking for exits forces you to get into it physically, with someone who may be bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than you. Or worse, multiple people who may be physically superior to you. The most practical thing to do is remove yourself from the situation, as quickly as possible. It's not pretty, and it's sure not glorious; but if you can stand to lose some ego, you will be safer.

Right now, I'm deciding on what to teach my five year old daughter about self-defense. What she's being taught to do is defend, then run away and get a teacher. That should be enough for the schoolyard. Later, I'll teach her sexual assault defense, which works the same way. The focus is not on hurting the other guy, it's on getting away in one piece.

[Rad]

This isn't really the place for this, so I'm going to respond via PM. I'd love to discuss this with you further, if you're so inclined. Intelligent debates on self defense are rare--especially on the internet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[The Jake]

In response to the OPs question, what about Small Circle Jiu Jitsu? Check this link [link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Jay"]here[/link].

I've done a lot of martial arts but I'm going to avoid discussions on a lot of this other stuff, except to say Cain's posts are bloody spot on.

- J.

[Wounded Ronin]

This isn't really the place for this, so I'm going to respond via PM. I'd love to discuss this with you further, if you're so inclined. Intelligent debates on self defense are rare--especially on the internet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

WHATEVER IT WAS YOU JUST SAID WILL NOT WORK ON T3H STR33T. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY ON T3H STR33T SINCE THE BAGGY PANTS OF GANGBANGERS ACTUALLY EMIT PARADOX FIELDS WHERE THEY GO SUPER SAIYA JIN AND CANNOT BE HARMED BY MORTAL WEAPONS. INSTEAD, TAKE THIS MAGIC SPEAR. IT IS THE ONLY THING WHICH MAY HARM THE JAGUAR MEN.

[Rad]

Actually, it's usually not quite that bad... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Critias]

If I had a magic spear, I'd use my stabbidy-stabbidy powers for good.

[hyzmarca]

Right now, I'm deciding on what to teach my five year old daughter about self-defense. What she's being taught to do is defend, then run away and get a teacher. That should be enough for the schoolyard.

I'm not quite sure how effective that'll be in the long run. Schoolyard conflict isn't like other kinds of fights. It's 100% social posturing and acting dishonorably has far worse consequences than being beaten up does in those situations.
When I was in school, one of the most important rules was that you never tell a teacher. It was against the code. Everybody knew it. Even the teachers knew it. And you don't break the code.

There were other rules to, of course, though less well enforced. One of them was that that fights could be settled with simple equity, if both parties agree to it. The party that was struck gets a number of free hits equal to the number of times he or she was hit. And that works because most kids who try to start a fight really don't want to go through with it, and it allows things to end in a controlled manner with both parties saving face. Ideally, the fight ends with both parties respecting each other, if not being friends.

Of course, this really only applies to conflicts between boys.

Girls fight for social reasons, too. But it is different with girls. Girls, for the most part, don't have to worry about principles such as honor the same way that boys do. Their fights have fewer rules, if any at all. They tend to be rather savage gang attacks perpetrated by friends of the victim for the purpose of establishing pure social dominance, essentially depositing the victim at the bottom of the group's social hierarchy. It is the extreme form of relational aggression; while boys beat up their enemies, girls beat up their friends.

I'm not well versed in the customary rules for violence between schoolgirls, but I can say with some certainty that running away and getting a teacher would be just as socially disastrous for a girl who is on the receiving end of a pummeling as it would be for a boy. You have to maintain control and self-discipline and avoid signs of weakness or cowardliness. This might mean fighting back and winning, successfully asserting personal dominance, it might mean fighting back and and reaching a position where the attacker chooses to call it a draw, or it might mean that taking the blows with a wide smile and occasionally suggesting that the attacker hit harder if no other defense is feasible.

Of course, these concerns only apply to social posturing, which schoolyard fights are, and not to other self-defense issues.

I will say that the only safe retreat is a tactical retreat, and that it is important to know when it is appropriate to use deadly force. In some situations, such as a quick snatch and grab, running is never an option, and your left with no realistic options other than stabbing femoral arteries or capitulating and facing probable death.

I'm going to say, with guns, it really depends. Seriously, you can't outrun a bullet. But, more importantly, every weapon has both a minimum and a maximum effective range. The key is to remain either outside the maximum, or inside the minimum, so that they can't bring the weapon to bear against you. Pistols have very low minimum ranges, you'd have to practically be grappling the gunman. But, it is possible for a normal human being with no special training to sprint 15 feet and stab a trained shooter to death before he can bring a holstered weapon to bear (which is why cops are allowed to shoot people with knives who are within 15 feet). Is it ideal? No, but it ends the threat.

I'm also going to say that humans are natural predators; we're genetically programed to stalk, chase, and kill. And when dealing with predators in a predatory mode, running is the stupidest possible response. Running is what food does. Running from a predator merely invites pursuit, and being perused invites being eaten. This is even worse when you're dealing with packs or groups, since you get the whole bunch of them after you. The slow and clam retreat is the only viable retreat. The trick is to at least appear potentially dangerous while disengaging. This applies to muggers just as well as it does to mountain lions and feral dogs.

Of course, mountain lions cannot open doors, so simply ducking into a nearby building would be useful with them, if you can do it without running. People are more clever, but there are these things called locks that can slow them down. There are also these things called claymore mines that you can set up for when they get through the lock, though I'm not sure if doing that would be entirely legal.

The most important aspects of self defense are situational awareness and following your instincts. Know where the exists are, know where the other people are, know if your in a well lit area or a dark one. Most importantly, if you feel afraid or uneasy, don't ignore that instinct, act on it. Fear is your brain's way of telling you that you are in a dangerous situation.

If you end up being attacked, give up your money without hesitation, but never, under any circumstances, allow any attacker to take you to a second location. The only reason for them to do so is to do something to you that they don't have time to do where they attacked you, and it is rarely good.

Additionally, a lot of attacks (I'm thinking rape defense, here) come from people the victim knows. You can't attack Uncle Albert just because he's acting weird, you need a good reason.

Can't denotes physical impossibility. I don't think that there is anything physically stopping you from attacking Uncle Albert. I assume that you mean that it would be socially inappropriate to do so. I say, if Uncle Albert is touching your naughty place, then it would be socially appropriate to apply the Monkey Steals Peach to him.

The way I see it, teaching kids self-defense against sexual abuse is simple. Tell them that if someone makes them uncomfortable they should speak up and say so. Tell them if someone touches them in a way that makes them uncomfortable then they should make their discomfort known, order that person to stop, and kick, scream, twist, fight, yell for help, get away if possible, and immediately tell someone else about what happened (though an adult is often ideal, one might not be available). If they're in public, it is important to differentiate this from a simple temper tantrum and begging for help is one way to do so. Making it clear that the attacker isn't a parent can also help (even when the attacker is a parent). Of course, if that doesn't work, then there is no other choice but to escalate to deadly force, which is something that a child is certainly able to do, with the proper tools, but may not have sufficient emotional maturity to handle properly.

The size difference between young children and adults renders non-lethal defense techniques fairly worthless, but their small size combined with their superior reflexes and agility make children ideal knife fighters. Back in my day, carrying a pocket knife to school, where it would be useful both for utility and for defense against sexual assault, was uncommon but didn't raise any eyebrows. Unfortunately, most school systems these days have a zero tolerance policy, forcing one to rely on makeshift weapons such as well-sharpened pencils in case of sexual assault by an adult. The key isn't just to get to safety, but to be willing do whatever is possible to further that goal, including causing grievous injury or death. If you aren't prepared to use deadly force, there is a good chance that you'll freeze up when it becomes necessary. Unfortunately, there is no right age at which to teach this principle to children, and no right way to teach them. If they have the emotional maturity to understand when it is appropriate to use such violence and when it isn't, then they should be taught when it is alright to use it, when they're truly afraid that they'll be badly hurt or killed. But if they don't have that emotional maturity, then teaching them lethal self defense can potentially cause more problems that it protects them from.

The most important thing is that children in that situation should know that it is alright to do whatever it takes to get away from the predatory adult. They shouldn't limit their tactics, they shouldn't be afraid to act out, they shouldn't be afraid to cause injury. In essence, it is the exact opposite if what you teach your children every other day of their lives. And that's the important thing to teach them, that when an adult tries to hurt them, kidnap them, or touch them in a way that makes them uncomfortable, then they are no longer bound by the rules. If that happens, all the rules go out the window and they can do anything, without any sort of limitation, to get to safety.

Also, I'd recommend against teaching "stranger danger" because that's just stupid; it gives kids a false impression of an international organization of trenchcoat-wearing cartoon villains that is out to hurt them. The vast majority of child abuse is performed by friends, acquaintances, or relatives, as you say. More important is to teach situational awareness and differentiating between a dangerous situation and a safe one. It is also important because in a public attack, abduction, or just plain being lost in the mall (which happens with sufficient regularity that there are protocols for it), they may have no one to turn to for help but strangers. It's important that they learn to communicate with strangers safely, without putting themselves at risk, and to say no to those things that would put them at risk.

If I had a magic spear, I'd use my stabbidy-stabbidy powers for good.

If I had a magic spear, I'd ride on horseback with it, charging at some heavily-armored evil giants. And then, I'd stand on the horses ack while it is going full speed, like the horse is a surf board. And when I get close enough I'd leap from the horse at the giant and drive the spearhead between the plates of his armor while hanging on tightly so I don't fall to my death.

Of course, the giant was a windmill and it took around five hours for someone to spot me hanging there and for the fire department to get me down. So you might not want to try that.

[Cain]

Girls fight for social reasons, too. But it is different with girls. Girls, for the most part, don't have to worry about principals such as honor the same way that boys do. Their fights have fewer rules, if any at all. They tend to be rather savage gang attacks perpetrated by friends of the victim for the purpose of establishing pure social dominance, essentially depositing the victim at the bottom of the group's social hierarchy. It is the extreme form of relational aggression; while boys beat up their enemies, girls beat up their friends.

I'm not well versed in the customary rules for violence between schoolgirls, but I can say with some certainty that running away and getting a teacher would be just as socially disastrous for a girl who is on the receiving end of a pummeling as it would be for a boy. You have to maintain control and self-discipline and avoid signs of weakness or cowardliness. This might mean fighting back and winning, successfully asserting personal dominance, it might mean fighting back and and reaching a position where the attacker chooses to call it a draw, or it might mean that taking the blows with a wide smile and occasionally suggesting that the attacker hit harder if no other defense is feasible.

Of course, these concerns only apply to social posturing, which schoolyard fights are, and not to other self-defense issues.

I can say that those days are gone. Many schools have a zero-tolerance policy for bullying these days. I concede that the effectiveness of the response depends on the effectiveness of the school; but nowadays, going to the teacher guarantees action. I can also say that my daughter remains one of the most popular girls in her class.

I'm also going to say that humans are natural predators; we're genetically programed to stalk, chase, and kill. And when dealing with predators in a predatory mode, running is the stupidest possible response.

Um, no. Not even close. Humans are hunter-gatherers, which means we aren't natural predators. Without tools, we're just ineffective monkeys. And hell, you don't see a lot of predatory monkeys roaming about.

The most important aspects of self defense are situational awareness and following your instincts. Know where the exists are, know where the other people are, know if your in a well lit area or a dark one. Most importantly, if you feel afraid or uneasy, don't ignore that instinct, act on it. Fear is your brain's way of telling you that you are in a dangerous situation.

I agree wholeheartedly. Always know your exits, and how to get to them.

[Critias]

I would amend it to say that some humans are natural predators. By and large, those you'd have good reason to want to run away from are the sorts that might just be spurred on by such an obvious show of fear. Don't run unless you're sure you can get away, in much the same way you shouldn't fight unless you've got good odds of winning it.

Nothing to say but the ubiquitous internet "+1" on the "but never, ever, no matter what physical property you're willing to hand over, do not go fucking anywhere with anyone." Nothing good ever comes from getting into a car, stepping into a back room, being lined up against a wall, or letting yourself be herded anywhere by bad people with weapons. It'll never be easier to get away and safer to attempt it, than it whatever relatively public place you stumbled across the violent person in the first place -- they're sure as shit not going to take you to a police station or a hospital, so take your chances in that dark parking lot or back alley.

[Cain]

Don't run unless you're sure you can get away, in much the same way you shouldn't fight unless you've got good odds of winning it.

What happens if you don't know if you can do either? The answer is, fighting him will definitely expose you to a lot of risk, while running exposes you to less risk.

I'll also add that, to the best of my knowledge, humans do not have a "chase instinct" in the way dogs and cats do. If they did, humans would be compelled to chase and pounce on any fast-moving object, such as cars in the street.

[Method]

I'll also add that, to the best of my knowledge, humans do not have a "chase instinct" in the way dogs and cats do. If they did, humans would be compelled to chase and pounce on any fast-moving object, such as cars in the street.

Well except for that whole pre-frontal cortex bit that allows us to override our instincts... funny image tho...

[hyzmarca]

Um, no. Not even close. Humans are hunter-gatherers, which means we aren't natural predators. Without tools, we're just ineffective monkeys. And hell, you don't see a lot of predatory monkeys roaming about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQepG7sD6vk...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt5cx_nc3Jw...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtucwBlNr3A...=1&index=53
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/...ain678061.shtml


Apes, not monkeys. Humans are apes. And apes will mess you up. Especially chimps.

Hunter-gatherer is a type of society, not a classification of animal. We're omnivorous territorial tool-using social apex predators.

And while human chase instincts are subdued and subtle, they are most certainly there, sometimes manifesting during adrenalin-filled confrontations. And they're more likely to manifest when there is a group than when dealing with individuals alone.

And to better understand the probability of actually evading a group of determined attackers, I recommend watching an episode of Cops and so how often the people who run actually get away, and how often they suffer for their attempt to remove themselves from the situation. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just difficult in most circumstances.

It's best to make attacking you as risky as is possible, so that they'd have enough sense not to bother. Use the environment to put barriers between you and the aggressor(s), try to stay in well-lit public areas with a decent amount of traffic, that sort of thing. Retreat is never away from the aggressor, but toward a better tactical position, so that the aggressor is less likely to be able to do you harm if he or she follows.

Of course, since most fights are likely to start because of some sort of territorial transgression, it is rather important to be polite and non-aggressive when accidentally transgressing against someone. Of course, since most other fights are likely to be started for the purpose of territorial transgression, it is also important to make people think that the potential gain from fighting you just isn't worth the risk.

[Critias]

What happens if you don't know if you can do either? The answer is, fighting him will definitely expose you to a lot of risk, while running exposes you to less risk.

You're exposed to risk already if you're in a situation where you need to make a fight or flight decision. From there it's just a question of how you're going to handle that; by removing yourself from the risky situation, or by removing the other person who's chosen to put you at risk.

Like every such decision, it comes down to which one is going to work in that specific situation, for that specific person, facing that specific threat, on that specific terrain, under those specific lighting conditions, and on and on and on ad infinitum. There's no automatically right or automatically wrong answer -- everyone's got to decide for themselves which option is going to work for them, if/when they're forced to figure it out.

I'm just trying to point out (and so are a few other people) that flight does carry risks with it. There's no guarantee that you'll get away, and the first step in most "run away" plans is "turn your back on them." That may or may not work out well for you. I just think "hoof it" isn't always the answer, any more than "kick 'em" is always the answer.

I'll also add that, to the best of my knowledge, humans do not have a "chase instinct" in the way dogs and cats do. If they did, humans would be compelled to chase and pounce on any fast-moving object, such as cars in the street.

Humans as a species might or might not -- I don't really know or care -- but the scum that already dwell on the weak certainly do. If they catch you, you've made it a certainty that their blood will be up, they'll be angry that you tried to get away, they'll be high on adrenaline from a chase, and they'll certainly be the immediate aggressors in the physical confrontation to come (because while your back is turned and you're focused on running, they're focused on you and the prey-creature you've just turned yourself into). And, of course, that's even assuming they have to run to catch you. Bullets trump running shoes, when it comes to maximum speed.

Hell, even cops succumb to the "if I have to chase it, I'll punish it" mentality; who gets treated more roughly, generally speaking, people who run or people who don't?

[Cain]

Hunter-gatherer is a type of society, not a classification of animal. We're omnivorous territorial tool-using social apex predators.

Sorry, we are not predators. When was the last time you hunted down a meal? The human body is not built to chase down and kill prey.

And while human chase instincts are subdued and subtle, they are most certainly there, sometimes manifesting during adrenalin-filled confrontations.

Once again, apologies, but you're wrong. An instinct is an innate behavior over which the creature has little control. Get a dog's chase instinct going, and there's nothing it can do about it. As Method pointed out, humans have a conscious override, which technically means we don't have instincts at all.

And to better understand the probability of actually evading a group of determined attackers, I recommend watching an episode of Cops and so how often the people who run actually get away, and how often they suffer for their attempt to remove themselves from the situation. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just difficult in most circumstances.

Cops is an edited TV show, they don't tend to show the ones who get away, since it makes for bad TV. About ten years ago, they were filming in Seattle when the SPD busted the wrong house. That never made it to TV, AFAIK.

Of course, since most fights are likely to start because of some sort of territorial transgression, it is rather important to be polite and non-aggressive when accidentally transgressing against someone. Of course, since most other fights are likely to be started for the purpose of territorial transgression, it is also important to make people think that the potential gain from fighting you just isn't worth the risk.

This is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. There's a zillion possible reasons why a confrontation could start, from bar fight to rape defense. They're hardly all "territorial transgressions". Sure, it's important to be polite and non-aggressive, especially since that may defuse the situation. And making them think that the "potential risk" is a deterrent is just so much macho BS.

Basically, things aren't ever that neat, and attacking a bunch of people is never a good idea. Getting the hell out of there *is* always a good idea. You have to swallow some pride to do it, but it is unquestionably safer.

I'm just trying to point out (and so are a few other people) that flight does carry risks with it. There's no guarantee that you'll get away, and the first step in most "run away" plans is "turn your back on them." That may or may not work out well for you. I just think "hoof it" isn't always the answer, any more than "kick 'em" is always the answer.

True, but the great failing of many self-defense courses is that it encourages people to stay it out and fight, instead of doing damage and running away. Running should be your primary option. Definitely not your *only* option, but it should be the one you center your self-defense strategy around.

Let's take it down to a case of strategy and tactics. Most people get these mixed up. Your strategy for a confrontation should be to get out of dodge. How you do that depends on the situation, so you train tactics to achieve your strategy. They train strikes, joint-locks, whatever techniques float your boat. Often times, people get so caught up in their tactics, they focus on using them. But you have to keep an eye on your overall strategy, and remember that your purpose here is to stay safe.

And, of course, that's even assuming they have to run to catch you. Bullets trump running shoes, when it comes to maximum speed.

Hell, even cops succumb to the "if I have to chase it, I'll punish it" mentality; who gets treated more roughly, generally speaking, people who run or people who don't?

Once again, if the other guy is a skilled enough marksman to hit a moving target under combat conditions, you're going to get shot no matter what you do.

As for cops, well, I can't say for certain; but I have a cousin who's a prison guard. The prisoners who get treated more roughly are the ones who fight back, not the ones who run away.

[hyzmarca]

Sorry, we are not predators. When was the last time you hunted down a meal? The human body is not built to chase down and kill prey.

Many social redtors practice division of labor, though few have been so successful at taming their prey.

Once again, apologies, but you're wrong. An instinct is an innate behavior over which the creature has little control. Get a dog's chase instinct going, and there's nothing it can do about it. As Method pointed out, humans have a conscious override, which technically means we don't have instincts at all.

Your definition is so narow that nothing can be said to have instincts.

This is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. There's a zillion possible reasons why a confrontation could start, from bar fight to rape defense. They're hardly all "territorial transgressions". Sure, it's important to be polite and non-aggressive, especially since that may defuse the situation.

Bar fights generally don't start for no reason. Usually, someone steeped on someone's toes. And, seriously, if rape isn't a transgression I don't know what is.

And making them think that the "potential risk" is a deterrent is just so much macho BS.
So, well-lit crowded areas are Macho BS?

As for cops, well, I can't say for certain; but I have a cousin who's a prison guard. The prisoners who get treated more roughly are the ones who fight back, not the ones who run away.

Prisoners don't run away, they escape, and if it happens often enough to make such a generalization, then that prison has serious problems.

[Rad]

[edit]Sorry for the double-post, my internet connection at home is screwing up.[/edit]