You'll note in the example I gave it was a 15 year old girl that chased off a group of Neo Nazis by throwing a rock back at them. Why? Because for the most part, bullies want to prey on the weak, and they don't want people standing up to them. Let me say that again: yes, you can chase away bullies. The 15 year old girl in question was not a super ninja blackbelt with a .45 automatic... she was just a pretty normal 15 year old girl who stood up for herself and saved herself and the group she was with an INCREDIBLE amount of grief.

Also, I have been in a grand total of one fight in my life. A bully cornered me with two solid stone walls to my back and threw a few punches (that didn't hurt at all). I kicked him once, he fell over... I hadn't hurt him mind you (no leverage, the kick was more of a shove with my foot) but he had fallen on his ass, and I walked away, and that was that. He never bothered me again. Bullies work on fear, they don't want people fighting back. Kicking them ends it. Seriously. Running away would mean he'd be back in the future.



...are you freaking serious? Abuse victims that just run away or hide or whatever keep getting abused. Those that call the cops, get the help of friends, or otherwise fight back (even if it doesn't mean physically assaulting their abuser) do a heck of a lot better off. That's the only way to end it. Abusive relationships do NOT have a "just run away" option. They just don't.



You would run and leave your children behind? That's not only cowardly, that's sick and inhuman. Hell, I'd shove the kids to get them running and buy them time if that's the best I could do. Obviously if it's a simple mugging I'd hand over my money and that's that (the guy probably just wants drug money or something), but I would never NEVER run and leave a child behind unless I was running to draw them off or grab something to fight back with. Diffuse the situation? Absolutely. But abandon a child, especially my child? Dear god.

JaronK

Well, we have to give him points for honesty.

The worst part about his attitude, at least IMO, is the fact that while violent crime in the US is in decline (unlike it is in the UK and Australia. Cheers, lads!), the intensity of per-capita violent crime is on the rise. The chances of you getting shot/stabbed/raped/beaten/etc despite full compliance with your assailant(s) has risen quite markedly in the last 20 years or so.

So, no. It's getting to the point to where it might really be a good idea to fight back 100% of the time, if you're capable...

So, not only do we have macho BS, we have people recommending that they follow the macho BS.

Guess what? In the real world, sometimes the bullies win. In fact, they usually win, until you get a teacher or authority figure involved. Once a bully discovers he doesn't need to fear you, you've just made matters worse for yourself and everyone else.


Run for help.... wow, isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG?!

Took you a few posts, but at least you're seeing sense.


I said, read my response above. Since you seem incapable of doing so, I'll quote it for you:

So, you *all* run away. You don't stand and fight, letting your children applaud you as you stupidly put them in even more danger. What kind of moron would honestly stand and pose, as if he were in an MMA ring? You tell your children to run, then you run right alongside them to make sure they stay safe. Anything else is worse than cowardice, it's cowardice hiding under so much macho BS that you'll deliberately expose your children to danger.

You pissed me off with that line, so let me ask you what makes you think you're going to win that fight? What makes you think they won't not just beat your face in, but your wife and children as well. Congratulations, you've just caused grievous harm to your entire family, all because you were too full of yourself to run away.

See, the problem we keep butting up against here is how most people don't suddenly attack their bully or whomever with a suicidal fight-till-I-die-bite-out-his-carotid-artery mentality, but that would help a lot.

In SR, if some NPC was beating the crap out of your player character, you could rationally go, "Hmm, whatever the odds of taking him down are, I gotta just go for it," and then you'd put full pool into your Unarmed Combat defense roll and if you got lucky you'd get some successes.

But in real life such things as inhibition and fear and socialization come into play and a person never goes all out totally abandoning their own safety and continued living in order to take some bully down. In real life lots of people are rolling Unarmed Combat with no pool. For real. So of course the bully can PWN them.

I think the key to success in these situations in real life is full pool to Unarmed Combat, and don't worry about soaking damage, but just let your BOD take care of that. For better or for worse, because ultimately isn't life a game?

What macho BS? I thought I made it clear that we're talking about a very stupid fight? The guy was throwing punches that didn't even hurt (because he didn't know how to fight) and I kicked him in a way that didn't hurt him either, just knocked him down. That's a pretty damn lame fight. Hardly macho, and hardly bragging, especially when I said that's the only fight I've ever been in.

And yes, sometimes the bullies win. Sometimes you're too small to fight back. But sometimes the bully is someone you can beat.

Your problem is that you're an extreamist. You're saying "this is always correct" and failing to recognize that sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes a bully is actually a good fighter and you can't beat him. But sometimes the bully is just a normal bully, and even fighting back is enough.


Run for help.... wow, isn't that EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG?!

Took you a few posts, but at least you're seeing sense.



You all run away, the child has smaller legs, you've just killed your child. Sick.



Even if you can't win, you've bought the kid time. Kids have small legs, they can't get away from an adult chasing them. If you've got some crazy psycho attacking you (schizophrenic?), and you try to run with your kids, they will catch your kid. If you make the kid run while fighting him, you're buying him time to get away. That's the point. Even if you can't beat the guy (and surely there are some guys you can't beat) you've given the kid a chance.

Running is not always the answer. Sometimes it might be. Sometimes it's not. Running and leaving your kid to fend for himself is sick and twisted, since the kid will not be able to get away from an adult. Running from a bully that you could have fought off is foolish. Running from an abusive mate just means they'll get you later. Hell, running from someone trying to shoot you, unless you've got something to put between you and them... that's also pretty dumb.

I'm not saying you should always fight... that's as foolish as saying you should always run. I'm saying sometimes fighting really is the best answer.

JaronK

The bolded part is the whole reason people are still disagreeing with you, dude. You keep saying "run = safety" and that just isn't always true. It's not as simple as "you all run, and you all get away," just like it's not always as simple as "you fight, and you win."

It's somewhere in the fucking middle. Sometimes you run, sometimes you fight. It's entirely dependent on a million and one little factors that make any definitive statement complete and utter bullshit.

"Yeah, I'm so cool, his punches didn't even hurt me." And based off of that, you assume all possible attackers are incapable of hurting you. Riiiight.


More often than not, that "normal bully" has been in more fights than you have, is larger and stronger, and knows how to hit. If you think all bullies are hot air, you've been reading too many Judy Blume novels.


I'm sick?! You're the one suggesting that you stand and fight in front of your children, so they can get killed in front of your own eyes because you were too stupid to run away with them. Did you actually *read* what I posted the last two times, or is the concept simply too difficult for you?

You *all* run. You *all* get away, together. If one attacker catches up, you do the minimum needed to stop him, then keep running before the others catch up.

"Sick" is the macho BS that gets his own kids killed because he won't risk looking bad. Is that you?


True. BUT:

When you prepare for self-defense, you need a strategy, a path to victory. For example, a Jiu Jutsu stylist's strategy might be: "Take him to the ground". A striker's strategy might be: "Punch him until he stops".

For the majority of people, who'll never develop effective fighting skills, their strategy needs to be: Run. Escape, retreat, whatever you want to call it-- they need to run away and get the hell out of there.

I posted the rules before, but here they are again:

1. If you can run, run.
2. If you can't run, do *anything* to make it so you can run.
3. See Rule 1

Fighting might be necessary, but only as much as it enables you to run.

I did not at any time say anything close to that. I said that in the one fight I was in, the guy's punches did not hurt. I also said I didn't hurt him either (just knocked him down from a kick). His punches did not hurt because he wasn't actually any good at throwing punches, not because I was incredibly badass.

You see, you've been projecting your own ideas onto everyone else, but they're far from the truth. At no point did I even imply that I was particularly cool, or super tough... in fact I was pretty clear about not being much of a fighter. You just wanted to believe that.



I have not read any Judy Blume novels. And yes, most bullies don't want to fight people who fight back. That would get them in serious danger. Some might be really big and super strong, but that seems in my experience to be pretty darn rare.



Children do not run as fast as adults... they are gaurenteed not to get away, the attacker WILL catch up. What do you suggest as a minimum needed to stop him, and why did you wait until you were in a worse position (having just run, then turned again... you're now less ready to fight or act) to do anything? If you're so on top of it that you can just do some minimal effort to check this guy, why not finish it and ensure the protection of those you love? And if he's nasty enough that you can't beat him, do you think some minimal effort will do anything useful? You don't go into a fight looking to do something minimal, and act consistantly like someone they can easily harm.



I suggested fighting even if you are sure to lose, if that's going to give your child a chance to flee. Is that about looking bad to you? Or is that about protecting someone else?

I am not speaking from a position of machismo... that's entirely your misguided projection. I'm a pacifist, but also a realist. Since I've made it clear I'm not much of a fighter (again, one fight, against a guy who couldn't throw a punch effectively), I'm surely not showing off or being macho. So, readjust your concept of who you're arguing against instead of throwing out stealthy ad hominem (your argument is wrong because you're just trying to be macho) and start actually listen to what's being said. When a pacifist is telling you your position is too extreme, it's time to start reconsidering.

I have to ask... have you been in any situations like this? Have you dealt with long term bullying? Have you dealt with abusive lovers? Have you ever actually been in a situation where physically protecting another becomes important? I've dealt with the first two, though not the third (thank goodness). I have also been in a situation where it was important to look tough enough not to be attacked (a small group of guys looking to start a fight... we outnumbered them slightly and as soon as it was clear we looked like we were ready to take them on, they quickly backed down). Have you actually personally been in situations like this?

JaronK

Since each person has been robotically restating their position for the last several pages, can we just agree that nobody's going to convince anyone else or change their opinion, and JUST MOVE ON?

My effort to change the subject: Striking vs Grappling styles. All [legitimate] styles have something to teach and are valuable to learn. But some styles fit certain situations better than others. Grappling styles may be better suited to subduing an opponent without leaving many marks. Considering that I've heard that most street fights end up on the ground, BJJ or similar grappling styles might be efficient. But when facing the possibility of more than one opponent grappling with one leaves you too exposed to all his friends, so against multiples a striking style like Muay Thai might be better. Does anyone have an opinion about which styles are good for most generic situations?

It has been my experience that correctly applied Glock-Fu has proven itself capable of solving the vast majority self-defense situations quite decisively. It has been effectively used for subdual, striking, and even situations outside of the usual distances generally described as "hand-to-hand".

You obviously haven't encountered many bullies. I'd love to see where you get your numbers on that, were you a bully as a kid and thus an expert on all bullies?


Kids have a nice turn of speed over the short haul, but that's besides the point. If you have your kids stand and watch, especially against multiple attackers, your kids will get hurt. If you all run away, you have a much better chance of escaping harm. You do the minimum, because if there's others chasing you, you cannot stop all of them from reaching your children if you're fighting. Run, fight, disengage, run.

Standing to prove your machismo, and exposing your kids to danger, is what's sick.


For such a pacifist, you brag a whole lot about your one fight. Enough to believe that your one fight is how every fight goes. That sounds a lot like machismo to me.


See, to answer all that would make me guilty of macho BS. But since you asked, yes, I've dealt with all of those. Looking back, running would have been a smarter choice than fighting in every case. I've been bullied extensively in school, I've been an abuse victim, I've been in real fights, and I've been trained by some big names in martial arts (Jim DeMile, Patrick Strong directly, Dacascos Wun Hop Kuen Do indirectly, and seminars with Andy and Taky Kimura, Jesse Glover, Skip Hancock, among others). I've also trained numerous self-defense systems with dozens of instructors, inclulding Pankration and Krav Maga.

Now that I'm guilty of machismo, I can tell you that just about every self-defense situation I've ever been in would have gone better if I had done more running instead of fighting. Fighting is the last resort.


Running styles.

But that's just it. They're not the rules. They're your rules.

Those are rules to die by. What a wonderfully suicidal viewpoint.

Yeah, heck with it, Cain is far too entrenched in his extreme viewpoint, and nobody else is buying it. When I'm the one telling someone that they're too pacifistic, and they're telling me I'm being macho, that's SERIOUSLY saying something. Whatever.

Anyway, I think that FBI agent is very much a "real life adept" as it were. He was also documented at one point knocking on the door of a suspect's girlfriend's place, not realizing the guy was there and armed. The suspect opened the door with his gun pointed at the agent... who drew his weapon from his holster and shot the guy before he could fire. Improved Reflexes and improved pistols skill, I'd say.

I have to say that the guy in the video that started this thread didn't seem as impressive to me as he was supposed to be, but that may be all my circus and gymnastics experience talking.

JaronK

The bad guy actually had a gun in each hand pointed at the doorway, and Jelly shot the guy six times -- five hits, all in the head and neck, with the last round in his gun blowing up mattress because the bad guy'd started to slump over.

So he's even more awesome than you just made him sound.

And you have something better, I assume? Stand and fight and get your face beat in?


You're the one advocating fighting multiple opponents while encouraging his children to stand there and watch. What else can I call it? Sick?

Ooooh oooohh ooooh I wrote a thread about striking versus grappling a number of years ago. I hope you'll comment on it: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...t=0#entry193785

Actually it is called assessing a situation and responding appropriately to it, whether that is stand and fight, or run depends on the situation.

Your adherence to one method "RUN!" suggests several possibilities. 1) You have no clue what you are talking about, 2) you think and wish to suggest to us that you are "NINJA MASTER" while accusing others of being high handed, 3) you have a desire to annoy the rest of the community by sticking to your guns where any person with the least ability to reason would realize the tunnel vision inherent in your position, 4) you want to prove your machismo quotient by beating yourself mercilessly against logic, 5) you want us to believe that you are capable of superhuman speed since to outrun bullets you have to be damn fast, 6) you want us to believe you have superhuman strength because that is what you would need to carry two kids and run away, or in this scenario you might have a Captain America superpower and be able to convince them that "Yes we can keep up with daddy!" and somehow they would, 7) through the magic power of running away you can walk through walls, walk on water, or behave like someone in the 36 Poles of Shaolin, or you are developmentally challenged. My guess is it is a little bit of everything.

And, you'll note I've agreed with that on several occasions.

HOWEVER:

You still need a self-defense strategy. If you've studied theater, you'll understand the concept of a super-objective: your ultimate goal of the scene. In the case of self-defense, there is only one super-objective: get out of there, safely. In other words, run away. How you get to that super-objective varies based on many possible circumstances, but that needs to remain your overall strategy and primary goal.

As far as kids go, do you honestly think you have the ability to stop even a single opponent and prevent him from hurting your kids? Your kids need to run, you need to run to set the example, and you only stop and fight long enough to keep him off your kid's backs. If there's multiple opponents, you have even less time to disable an attacker, since they can just bypass you and go straight for your kids.

You want to talk about my issues, let's talk about yours. Why do you insist that running isn't the smartest and safest strategy, when dozens of martial arts instructors disagree with you?

Your super objective is to survive, and to do whatever is necessary to do so. Running or fighting are merely methods used to achieve your real objective which is to survive, preferably with the least number of negative affects.



No, I know so.



Your kids should have been trained by you as their father to respond properly. You will quickly outdistance them, while at the same time making yourself more vulnerable, especially if it is a close sudden encounter.



Assuming that you have decided running is the best action, which with two slower and scared noncombatants will rarely be the case. This is generally where you either would prefer a firearm or need to move quickly to a very close spot which will constrict their movement, hence limiting the number of attackers who can get past you or even at you.



Please cite all these wonderfully experienced individuals, I guarantee you their statements will have qualifiers. If they don't have qualifiers they are probably not worth listening to, so I could care less what they say. As to having problems, you are the one making a claim that one method of defense is a panacea for all potential confrontations and situations, no one else here is. The fact that you would press this point shows everyone here just how little you know on the subject matter.

No, I'm the one who specifically advocated getting the kid to run while fighting whatever the threat was if necessary to buy time to ensure the kid escapes... without stating anything about multiple opponents. My objection was to the idea of running with the kid, thereby slowing yourself down and ensuring you will not get away unless you're able to both outrun the attacker and carry the kid at the same time... a macho feat indeed.

Once again, you've made up your own version of my position which has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what I said. You've added in multiple opponents and specifically altered something I said. Strawman... and in fact an outright lie when you mentioned the part about encouraging the children to stand and watch, considering my earlier statements on the topic that were directly in opposition to your claim. Also, I don't believe I've stated my gender, though you've evidently assumed I am a large and powerful (and very macho) man, despite my comments about having not hurt the one opponent I've ever actually fought.

Let me ask again, bringing up the first scenario I gave:

The girl (15 years old, a friend of mine) had started hanging out with a group of goth kids at her high school in Germany. As they all went to the gym, a group of Neo Nazis started throwing rocks at them. The goth kids said to just run away, because those guys did it every day. They had been doing it for literally years. Her response was to throw a rock back, causing the Neo Nazis to scatter. They did not bother the group again.

Now, was her action a show of macho BS? Would continuing to let them throw rocks at you every day for years (as the goth kids had done) and just running be the better action? If so, why? Why was her solution worse?

Are you capable of comprehending the idea that running is not always the best solution?

JaronK

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


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.


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.

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.

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.

No, the basic strategy is to remove yourself from a dangerous situation. Sometimes that means physically removing yourself and hoping whatever makes that situation dangerous doesn't give chase, or gives chase ineffectively. Sometimes that means removing whatever it is that is making a situation dangerous. Sometimes the latter is a perfectly viable option, though of course anyone who dares say so is swiftly labeled a slinger of macho bullshit by you.

Exactly the point. The goal here is to increase your safety, and possibly the safety of others involved in the situation. Escaping for now might be exactly the thing to do... but it could also be an extremely foolish option (see the Neo Nazi group example above, which again was a real life thing). Sometimes you do need to make sure the threat doesn't come back, and sometimes (especially when there are others involved) you need to stop the source of the threat. Sometimes you're screwed and can't do either one. It's all situation dependent, and anyone who says any one method is always the best one is simply wrong. This includes people who say the best option is always to fight, and people who say the best option is always to run. It also applies to people who say the best solution is always to comply with what your attacker demands, by the way. All of these are valid options in specific scenarios, and each can be the best option given the appropriate situation. Random mugger with a knife wants your cash? Just give it to him. Angry drunk guy who's tough and looking to fight? Probably should get the heck out of the way as fast as possible. Long term harassing bullies, especially a group of such when you're in a group? Fighting (or at least demonstrating a willingness to do so) is probably the best option. Child in danger? Get the child clear safely in whatever way you can, usually by distracting the attacker (or taking him/her down if you can) while the child gets a chance to escape. You see someone else being seriously attacked? Call 911 (or your appropriate regional emergency number) and maintain a safe distance.

Lots of options for lots of situations. No one option is always best, and anyone who claims otherwise is downright ignorant of the situation.

JaronK

We're saying the same thing, the difference is that I'm emphasizing what you usually only get a sentence or two of from a traditional martial arts class. Removing yourself from danger, aka running away, is the primary goal. Disabling an attacker is a possible step towards achieving that goal, one which may or may not be necessary.

The slingers of macho BS are the ones who say fighting is generally the best option.


Oh, for crying out loud, haven't you realized by now that neo-nazi's aren't bullies, they're bottom feeders? Let's assume you had a credible threat, like a group of schoolchildren. What would have happened was that things would have rapidly devolved into a rock-throwing war, resulting in your sister landing in the hospital with a concussion. Would that make you happier? Because that's the real-life scenario.

You obviously know nothing about bullies. Bullies are not mystical wimps who always fold when confronted. Usually, they're bigger, rougher kids with more experience fighting. I don't know what Never Land you come from, but the bully who folds in the face of opposition is a myth.

The best option isn't always to run. The best option is to make it so you can run, then take that option.

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.



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 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.



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.



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.

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-


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.

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.



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



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.



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.

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

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.

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.


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.


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?"


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.

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.



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



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.



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.



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?

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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."



There, he just advocated our point. Moving on.

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.


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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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.

"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.

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--



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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.



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?



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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I think this is just a case of internet misunderstanding.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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...

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.