Self Defense.
2003-Jul-16, Wednesday 15:48![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thorfinn![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
the_christian's recent self defense incident has prompted me to post some stuff about self defense and legalities and ethics thereof, with some digression into "why martial arts?". I've done so in various scattered comments in other journals before... but I haven't posted in my own journal about it before.
The two predicates of the ethical dilemma regarding self defense go:
- Some people do attack other people.
- People have a right not to be attacked.
... Err... So now what? Hrm. The question really is then, given the above two predicates, what is it ethical for the "potential victim" to do to avoid being attacked and injured?
Options range across the map:
- nuclear hand grenades for everyone
- lethal violence is okay in all circumstances where you feel you're under threat
- "do as you were about to be done unto"
- non-lethal violence is the only acceptable response
- escape must be your first recourse, and then and only then one of the above...
- escape is the only acceptable response, ever
Self-defense legalities are an attempt to strike a balance, and in most countries that I know of, they mostly boil down to "You are allowed to immediately respond with approximately the same level of violence as you truly believe you are being immediately threatened with, and you must immediately cease as soon as you believe the threat is dealt with". In non "immediate threat" situations, you are generally required to escape, because it is reasonable to assume that escape is possible if the threat isn't "immediate". This is pretty much "escape is first recourse, then do as you were about to be done unto".
That does lead to the odd edge case, like one highschool kid who regularly claimed to know "deadly martial arts" and was believed, threatened to kill some other kid, including nasty handwaving. "Victim" promptly pulled a gun and shot "kung-fu" kid dead. Reasonable self defense, even though "kung-fu" kid actually had no skill beyond watching too many chop-socky movies...
I happen to think that the laws in this area have struck a pretty good compromise. It's beyond reasonable expectation to believe that it's always possible to escape... It certainly isn't always possible to escape. I've had this experience myself.
I was sitting upstairs in a 1980s model Sydney city train (the ones with the brown vinyl seats and the metal handles on seat corners for seat-flipping), with about half-a-dozen other passengers. A gang of about 8 youths wandered up the stairs, and proceeded to scatter themselves variously about the carriage. Somewhere in that process was when my peripheral vision tracking pulled my head out of my book, and I immediately slid rapidly into "huntmode" (eyes go into unblinking mode, and visual processing rate goes way up, and I track everything in the vicinity).
At that point, given the variously metal-cornered environment, and multiple potential attackers, I was fully prepared to start doling out maximal unlimited violence if something started, because if eight guys try to beat on one in that kind of terrain, the one is under threat of lethal injury, even if the multiple attackers don't intend to cause it. The gang leader seemed to be wary enough to not want to start something with someone that clearly was in target tracking mode, though. He came and sat in a seat outside of arm's reach... and I said, "You're welcome to the money in my wallet, but I want the wallet back", in a flat, ultra-calm tone. He let me carefully hand over my wallet, which he proceeded to pull the all of five bucks cash I had out, then gave my wallet back to me. Very sensible fellow. If he'd been at all uncareful and made any sudden threatening motions, I suspect that very bad things might've occurred, very very fast, and several people may well have died, myself very much included as a possibility.
That's the closest I've ever come to needing to actually strike somebody (in a self-defense context, anyway), and I'm very glad that's as far as it's ever gone. Paradoxically, though, that I have not needed to do so is because I am prepared to respond, if I have no other options. Running just isn't an option in some circumstances, and the best defense is not necessarily a good offense, but is, instead, the clear presentation of the readiness of a good offense. If I'd been meek and cowed, or tried to attack, in the above situation, I would've almost certainly been beaten up and then robbed anyway. Calm, ready, prepared to respond if something actually starts... That's the right defense.
And it works - I have used similar approaches in other "situations". People won't generally attack someone who looks like they are tracking them and are fully prepared to respond to violence. If you back away and just "run", then you're likely to trigger a "give chase" response... Humans are pack animals, and will give chase just like pack animals. If you "fire up", and stare at the potential attackers, and carefully walk away, whilst clearly tracking... They think twice, and usually just don't.
Of course, the problem is, your "preparedness" has to be real, unless you've learned how to fake sincerity. That's where martial arts, or a reasonable amount of self defense training comes in. You need to be confident that you can do something if someone jumps you, even if it's just "defend yourself sufficiently well for the few seconds it takes to create an escape route".
How much time and effort each person is willing to spend on gaining skill in that area, and whether it's possible or worth gaining that skill, and whether the correspondent risk reduction and other side benefits are worth the time and effort, well, that does have to be an individual decision, because people's contexts vary, a lot.
To relate this whole thing to world politics for a moment... I don't have a problem with self-defense for countries either. But there really has to be a genuine and real and present threat. That's what bugs the hell out of me regarding Iraq... Iraq did not present any kind of credible and real threat to US or world security, and that was clear in advance, let alone in present hindsight regarding the "intelligence information" that was used. By all means, the US needs to defend itself against "terror organisations", but bombing the hell out of "rogue state de jour" is not the way to go.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-15 23:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-15 23:54 (UTC)What really annoys me about it, is that the combination of NK having nukes, and AU being a US toady, means that we are now a nuclear target. Please, friends, if you live in Canberra, soon is the time to leave. Or Sydney. Or Darwin. Maybe Brisbane. Bah.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 03:54 (UTC)I'd be surprised if China was encouraging a North Korean nuclear program - I just don't see how it's in their interests. It encourages a US military buildup both locally and globally, neither of which really helps China. OTOH, they might see it differently.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 18:10 (UTC)And no, we're not a high priority target, but we're right bang in the category of a "low value but high visibility" target. And that's what nukes are all about. You don't nuke something you want to keep. You nuke something far away, to make a point that you can.
"Tactical" nukes are bullpucky, you get more bang for buck out of other modern ordnance. "Strategic" nukes, OTOH, they're the thing. And you don't operate "in theatre" with strategic nukes. You fire them across the world. That's the whole point.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-15 23:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:34 (UTC)I wish I knew I could count on my reflexes. I haven't ever figured out how to bring myself to be disciplined with any kind of physical training. I can have tons of work discipline, but elsewhere... sigh.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 13:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:02 (UTC)IIRC it's more like "If there's no other possibility you have to use as little force/violence as possible to deal with the immediate threat (if this exceeds the level of violence you're threatened with, you'd better have a very good excuse)." in .at.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 00:47 (UTC)Given that imperialism is a ridiculous attitude these days, there's no place for a large country to engage in the first strike. And there was no way that Iraq was going to attack anyone any time soon.
Shit happens
Date: 2003-07-16 00:59 (UTC)Similar situation except I didnt consider the gang of three youths who got onto my train carriage an immediate threat so didnt bother with more than a cursory glance when they entered. didnt have enought time to move into "Now I'm really not the person you want to fuck with" mode (usually my size does it by itself) and simply reacted to the fact I had a machete and dagger pulled on me...
Fortunatley this was after video cameras were fitted in train carirages, and the driver actually was watchign his, and had called the police and ambulance to the next station down the line (apparetnly he didn;'t consider me a threat to other passangers and I had neutralised the youths in fairly short order). But if it wasn;t for the video evidence, and the drivers testimony I coudl of found myself in a spot of bother (mind you I also had called the police and ambulance and the three youths were found with 22 wallets and 8 mobiles between them whereas I had only mine)
However, it has made me a lot more alert when I am travellign late at night, hoping that my size and demeanour ensure that I don't fidn myself in a position to need to do something liek that again
Re: Shit happens
Date: 2003-07-16 18:22 (UTC)Re: Shit happens
Date: 2003-07-16 18:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 03:28 (UTC)I think this is my fundamental problem with all this. I tend to twist the usual "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" into "do unto others as they wish done unto them" (otherwise the SM dynamic doesn't work too well).
But in these circumstances, I would *like* other people's response to me (if I happened to lose it one day and get violent) to be compassion, calm and disarmament but not immobilisation or direct harm. I am all in favour of things like Aikido (as I understand it) using the attacker's energy back on them. I am totally in favour of swift disarmament and understand that fleeing and diplomacy are not always options, especially in the crowd situations you have described. But I think I want a 'best practice' attitude, where there are behaviours you should try first and then meting out revenge, vengeance, retaliation or whatever you call equal violence is a *last resort*.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 08:07 (UTC)Yes, but not quite in the context that most people think.
I've been studying Aikido for about 9 months now, so I'm still an abject beginner, but Aikido does give you the skills to take the energy of someone running at you or otherwise attacking you and throw or immobilise them.
If you throw someone a fair distance and they can't breakfall, it's going to hurt. Most pins can be turned into joint breaking moves with little or no effort. Aikido teaches strikes, it often includes weapons training (although mostly with the attitude that it is easier to defend yourself against weapons you know how to use) and my Sensei is an expert in Iaido and other sword arts.
It's not just something to let people bounce off you (the image many people get when they think of redirecting the attacker's energy back at them). it gives you the skills to do many things - most of it is circular, so you can redirect energy or use your own. Once you have some skill it teaches defense against multiple attackers (watching black belt testing is an amazing thing).
The spiritul aspects of Aikido speak of Budo, the martial way - using a martial discipline for character or spiritual development - and that an attacker should be stopped from attacking you with the minimal amount of damage to yourself and to them, but sometimes people get hurt be it accidentally or because they will not stop attacking.
Just because someone learns Aikido does not mean they will only use it in defense or that they will only use it to do minimal damage. If they do not then they are missing part of the point, but that is common in this world.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 11:25 (UTC)On the gripping hand, I have also been instructed that if you can just confuse the opponent long enough to run like the wind, that's the optimal solution. (An example given being, a woman in our dojo who was threatened on the street; she tenkan-ed around the foe and kept going, and he just stood there surprised as she headed for the horizon.)
Motion Camouflage...
Date: 2003-07-16 22:16 (UTC)It occurs to me that the motion patterns used in Aikido and Tai Chi (and Ba Gua, and a quite few other Martial Arts), including the limb motions involved in strikes do use motion camouflage, and use it extensively. Interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 18:36 (UTC)And yes, absolutely. I've done a lot of Tai Chi, not Aikido, but the arts are pretty similar. I can do a helluva lot more damage to someone by throwing them into some terrain feature by redirecting their momentum, than by punching them. The former has quite a high likelihood of them breaking something, including their neck. The latter, depending on how well built they are, has a maximal effect of internal organ damage and severe bruising.
I'm a lot more likely to just ensure that they can't hit me, by correct placement, and proceed to vanish, but I certainly have the capability to do serious damage, rather than just vanishing into the dust.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 20:01 (UTC)This is the question that people reading Musashi often run into... Musashi talks about "if you're studying martial arts, you're studying how to kill people". That's absolutely right. You are. Don't forget it. It's important. If you know and remember that, then you won't treat the use of martial arts lightly. Martial Arts is a tool, so, like any other tool, it's generally reason-agnostic in application. Tools don't ask why or when. It's up to the user to ask why and when to use the tools.
Oh, and note that I do draw a very strong distinction between a Martial Art, Martial Sports, and a third side category of "Self Defense Practices". These things are all very different, and people do them for very different reasons.
That last category is odd. You generally get much better and more effective and permanent results by learning a Martial Art proper... OTOH, that takes a lot more time and effort than just picking up a self-defense short course.
Martial Arts
Date: 2003-07-16 06:49 (UTC)My personal concerns are that I would take too long to get into focus in a real incident and that I would be somewhat too likely to imitate habits of my distant viking ancestors if one did happen (i.e. descend into rage). I have never suffered rage in SCA fighting (indeed, I find cathartic and calming even if I am in an angry mood when I arrive) but, years ago, I certainly did in one of my rare fights at school.
Re: Martial Arts
Date: 2003-07-16 19:05 (UTC)In Sydney, wandering around the city, I'd be in Yellow, with very regular excursions (at least one every few hours) into Condition Orange, and very frequent (every 15 minutes on average) "threat evaluations" in Yellow. In Melbourne, I'm usually at the very bottom edge of Yellow, and I typically go a few hours before needing to perform a threat evaluation at all, and I go weeks without ever needing to hit Orange. And there are public places in Melbourne I will go in Condition White in, for short periods. I never drop into White in Sydney unless I'm inside a house.
Sovereignty
Date: 2003-07-16 06:59 (UTC)Extending the principle in that way then seems to be just a point about restraint in use of violence -- violence is bad so is only allowed in self-defence.
But that is where the individual analogy falls down. Because it then becomes an absolutist position on sovereignty. What happens inside a sovereign country is no-one else's business (in a military sense) because you are only to engage in violence in self-defence.
Which is a warrant for (at the extreme) genocide. Now, in practice, the international community has effectively taken that position (Bosnia eventually and Kossovo fairly quickly being exceptions). But the international community is made up of states, so it is hardly surprising that it tends to take a high view of sovereignty.
Do you really want that implication?
Re: Sovereignty
Date: 2003-07-16 18:02 (UTC)What I want, is for behaviour between states to be treated similarly to behaviour between humans. If a human is sitting on a street corner, stabbing themselves repeatedly with a fork, I will likely check that they mean to do that to themselves... but if they do, I'm not going to interfere.
Others do take a more compassionate view, and would try to stop the person stabbing themselves with a fork... But I don't think that stabbing the person in the throat with a knife to stop them stabbing themselves with a fork is a sane action. Now, maybe if you're a neurosurgeon, sure... but we don't know that much about states. We're at the caveman level of surgery, when it comes to knowing about the anatomy and neuroanatomy of states. As such, we are almost certain to cause more harm than good by poking around with a knife, or if not, then solely due to sheer bloody luck.
If that human wants to stab me with a fork, I'm going to stop them at the point where I know they're going to. If that human wants to stab my friend with a fork, then assuming I'm present, and my friend isn't able to defend themselves well enough, then I'll stop the attacker.
Re: Sovereignty
Date: 2003-07-17 00:48 (UTC)After all, it's not really the 'state' stabbing itself. It's (to take the genocide case) one group of humans holding power within a state killing another group of humans.
I take a fairly strong view of sovereignty (http://www.livejournal.com/users/erudito/69307.html#cutid1). The arguments for a strong view of sovereignty I take to be (1) vehicle of accountability and (2) ordering structure for international affairs, where interstate war is dis-order.
But your position is not really an anti-violence one as such, just anti inter-state violence except in self-defence. And genocide is not analogous to self-harm.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 12:12 (UTC)I agree there needs to be some standard of limited aggression. The human practice of looking for loopholes would make any other standard a ludicrous joke. I worry, sometimes, that assuming people have the skill to make a choice about succeeding with a given force level, is a poor choice.
I was at a tournament this weekend, and the nearby site was being used by a group celebrating a kids birthday party. The kids were having a great time with a big blow up castle, which was funny considering the SCA fighters in the next area. However, once the adults got there and started drinking, the music got louder and louder.
Once it got the point we could hear it at conversational volume at five hundred feet, I went over to speak to them, rather than just calling the park ranger. I wasn't armored, and we hadn't started fighting yet, but I am told I am fairly imposing. I ended up talking with a guy with about four of his friends coming up behind him. I was polite, and he stopped for a second. I saw his hip swing back, and his hand come up to shoulder level. I didn't flinch, and he swung his hand down to offer a handshake.
It was good things worked out, and I wasn't really worried about standing alone, with the other tournament fighters on hand, but it was odd to see the decision point the other guy went through. I find myself wondering now, had he swung, what would have happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 18:21 (UTC)And re escaping? Usually you're only required to escape if it's not an immediate threat, and you're probably not required to escape if you don't believe you actually can.
As for the swung thing... You can tell if someone's swinging to hit you or not. I stood in front of a bully kid, my stance arms down, relaxed but ready, right leg slightly in front, who was harrassing another schoolfriend for about 15 minutes once. He kept "faking" swings at me, and I never twitched. If he'd gone for me for real, he would've been hit before he completed the swing... and I suspect the same would've happened with you.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-16 23:34 (UTC)The list of predicates and options reminds me of a little French biker I used to know who decided that the best combination of martial arts was savate and aikido.
If someone want to biff you and there's a bit of space and room to maneuver, then aikido is the preferred option.
If there is simply no room to maneuver then a swift kick to the kneecap or ankle should be sufficient.
Apparently escape, according to this worldly wise man, was not always an option (e.g., you're confronted by a lunatic in a crowded bar).
Neither strategy was based on the predicate of not harming the assailant. Frenchie's logic was "well, if they're trying to hurt you, you want to create the circumstances where they can't". It's not that he particularly wanted to pound anyone into the ground, it's just that he didn't want the would-be assailiant to have another go.
This sort of fits with your general orientation:
You need to be confident that you can do something if someone jumps you, even if it's just "defend yourself sufficiently well for the few seconds it takes to create an escape route".
I suppose for Frenchie, creating an escape route meant being able to calmly walk away with dignity.
martial skills vs. martial spirit (and defence)
Date: 2003-07-16 23:47 (UTC)thats how i get out junior students to do better kendo, by visualizing their attack doing just that, striking the killing blow, never stopping, and not being intimidated
the fact that kendo is a fighting sport, not a fighting art like say, bayonet training in the army, does not take away from the fighting spirit it fosters
sure, we wear armour, and fight with bamboo, in a rigidly formatted environment, but the physical skills are there; balance, poise, agility, speed, power, as well as the mental focus; look for the opening, make no opening, judge the situation, break your opponents focus, hold your ground, take the chance, finish what you start.
over the years, from about age 6 i have been instructed in "things what hurt the other guy" by my father, big viking/biker twin uncles, and friends. my dad is a dirty, dirty fighter-eyes, nose, throat, groin, i think Viet-Nam and two brothers taught him that, (and thats probably where my brutal streak comes from.)
with a pool of aikido, hapkido, karate, kung-fu, tai-chi, wu-shu, jo-do, naginata, Brazilian ju-jitsu, and good ol' brawling to draw from, i've been made familiar with a bunch of ways to introduce an attacker to pain
coming from a "do unto others, as they would do unto you" background, i would tend to agree with almost everything previously posted about keeping cool, being aware and standing strong. however, whilst i would say that the best defense is not to force a bad situation worse (like the wallet on the train). For me, certain things would change my response from "equal" to "greater" (immediate) force: if someone looks to bash me or mine, i'm happy to cripple but i'd rather incapacitate, if the attacker were to use a killing weapon; a knife, broken bottle or club, i'd tend to be more brutal, but again, i'd rather stop than exact a maiming.
however, there have been a number of syringe attacks in Melbourne over the last few years. if i were confronted with a syringe, and actually attacked with it, the attacker would be the target of no less than a maiming, and i would actively chose more fatal targets. can't abide terror attacks.
flight might be "nicer" but when confronted with an aggressor, who will not back down, and has more than a passing interest in causing harm, i would not only support, but promote a calculated and overwhelming violent response. no such thing as a "fair fight", no second chance to apologise.
i've been attaked (pub brawl) without the need to lay someone out, so its not just blind aggression talking, i've gotten between two screaming, kicking, punch-throwing and bleeding combatants, and been able to hold them off each other, until security got there
and i have willingly, knowingly and with fore-thought, put myself between a friend and someone he believed would attempt to violently kill him, during a "negotiation"
none of these situations required me to cause harm, but i think i could and would if the need had arisen. likewise, invade my house, and face three feet of steel, laws be dammned.
Re: martial skills vs. martial spirit (and defence)
Date: 2003-07-17 18:44 (UTC)I don't like violence. In fact, I can think of nothing more abbhorent. That being said, however, humans (myself included) are at their very core violent beings. I've said in differnt palces than this that the only way I could bring myself to spar in naginata is because the fighting is less about violence, more about competition, and is set in a situation surrounded by rigid rules of behaviour.
That being said...
I was raised with the whole 'victin psychology' thing smothering me. Even now, I can't walk down the street at night by myself without being mrotally afraid. I've seen people I care about be sucked into brawls without being able to move to help them or to run or to scream. Because I was terrified of the violence.
When confronted with violence myself, however, I have a very focused way of dealing with it. I have wrestled weapons out of people's hands because I was between them and their target. I have dodged punches without having time to think. And every time I have been physically hit out side of my martial arts training (and there are been quite a few times), I have always taken it like a man. Sure, I was a nervous wreck afterwards, but not at the time.
Despite this all, I know deep in my bones what would happen if anyone actually tried to hurt me seriously. I know that if anyone tried to grab me on the street or tried to force themselves on me or anything like that, I would make them regret it. I know that I would break limbs, smash their head into something repeatedly, claw, bite, teat, punch, kick and cause as much pain and suffering as I could.
That's what scares me the most, I think. The fact that I would become what I fear the most.
Re: martial skills vs. martial spirit (and defence)
Date: 2003-07-17 19:02 (UTC)As for the fear of your own response if someone tried to hurt you seriously? Yes, indeed. It's why I'm very very glad to have never had to use my own MA skills beyond delivering the odd thousand-yard stare. I know I'm capable of killing people with my bare hands, if I need to. I sure as hell don't want to, though.
Interestingly, there's an odd digression into consensual sadomasochism to be had here... I am a sadomasochist, as a lot of people know. I like inflicting pain. I like hearing someone else whimper and moan and cry because of something I've done to them... And I like to whimper and moan and cry because of something someone's done to me, given the right someones. I think that does speak to the "violent core" of human nature, and satisfying it in a consensual context is pretty great. Well, I think so, anyway. :)
Re: martial skills vs. martial spirit (and defence)
Date: 2003-07-23 15:30 (UTC)as for focus, i can say for sure that whilst my formal martial training has honed my combative focus, and shown me "how" and "when" , the "why" has always to my memory always been there. very old memories of looking around for threats, looking for exits and weapons from age 5.
for myself at least, i believe the focus -was- there, and formal martial training just chipped away at the herd-animal social restraints of "do-no-harm" so when --needed--, i'm not held back by niggling doubt, the focus is there, and i act.. rationally with thought, but "no-mind".
thats where martial training brings focus. to just act when needed, and to discipline the human character.(hopefully in to avoiding the situation in the first place).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-07-17 18:46 (UTC)Even the present hindsight is based on information that was available before the first strike.