Part 4: True Self-Defense
So if a bar fight isn't Self-Defense and Self-Defense isn't a bar fight, what is Self-Defense? It is the legal determination made by a criminal justice official that the force used to defeat an assailant was justified. It is absolutely not anything that any instructor in armed or unarmed combat teaches you. But it is combat.
As I write this, I literally just got back from a fascinating conversation about the topic. I was telling a friend about what I have been writing about when a young man at the next table asked to join us. He asked me what system of martial arts I would use if somebody came up and threw a punch at me in the bar. I told him none. Instead I would offer to buy the assailant a drink. He then told me and my friend a story about inadvertently spilling a drink on somebody at a bar, and then offering to buy the guy a drink. The offended party took a swing at him. This young man was a martial artist who blocked the punch, kneed the guy in the gut and then kneed him in the temple. Then, he ran out of the bar. I asked him, why did you run? He answered because he was afraid of the legal consequences. That proves the point!
This is a great illustration of what self-defense is not. I told him, the martial arts instructors he had been studying under for ten years had lied to him. The technique he used was not self-defense. If it had been, he would not have feared the legal consequences of kneeing a person in the temple. I said it was great martial arts, but it was not justifiable self-defense. You can't knee a person in the head, causing Damage, when there is no legitimate threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
Then the "What Ifs" began in the conversation. Well, what if he had connected and knocked him to the ground and the guy started kicking him in the ribs? Or, bashing his face in? Or, stomping his ribs and puncturing a lung? All of these are really good technical questions about martial arts. They have nothing to do with actual Self-Defense. My answer is why didn't he just walk away after his apology was rejected?
True Self-Defense is combat. It does not matter if you are armed or unarmed. If you are not justified in shooting somebody, or stabbing somebody, then you are not justified in maiming them with your bare hands. My young friend did not get it. I told him that he (and I) had been lied to by martial arts instructors about the definition of self-defense. They told us that it was a technique to end a fight. Kneeing somebody in the temple is a good way to end a fight. It is absolutely an over-reaction to a school-yard pissing contest.
If it is not a combat situation, meaning a situation in which you face death or grievous bodily harm, then there is absolutely no justification for causing death or grievous bodily harm to the other person. He is very lucky he did not kill that person.
But, don't I have a right to defend myself? Sure you do. But, why did you get into the altercation in the first place? Why? Because egos got involved. Be a gentleman, apologize and offer to make recompense. If your offer is refused, then walk away. If you try to walk away, and are still assaulted, then, and only then, could you justifiably hurt the other person. That is a self-defense situation. That is a situation where somebody is deliberately preventing you from leaving by their use of force.
The problem with the martial arts is that they train people to be able to do something, but don't explain when it is appropriate to do something. I used to teach people how to use a weapon for intimidation. Until a friend of mine got charged with "Menacing," for doing just that. He was trying to not hurt somebody, but nonetheless broke the law. It was not a situation in which he would have been justified in using the weapon, so brandishing it is an unjustified show of force. Bashing someone's temple in because of a misunderstanding at the bar is also an unjustified use of force.
There is absolutely no reason for a bar fight. I have been in a lot of bars. I have spilled drinks in bars. I have had drinks spilled on me. I have never not been able to use social skills to resolve any issue I found myself in. Tim Larkin calls it "The Three Day Test." Every action of violence you are a part of must pass this test to be justified: three days from now how will this instance effect my life? Will I be in jail? Will I be in a morgue? Will I put somebody in a morgue over a spilled drink, or in an intensive care unit? Is any of that worth it?
If you are not justified in killing the person, it is not self-defense, and it is not worth getting into a bar-fight over. Now, if the guy comes into the bar and starts stabbing people at random--which is happening now in parts of the world--then by all means knee him in the gut and then in the temple. That is self-defense. Which, to me, begs the question why are you not armed? I would not have to knee such a person in the head, because I would either stab them or, in another setting, shoot them. I carry a gun or a knife everywhere I go, and I have never had to use either of them since returning from Iraq. But why would I put myself at a disadvantage if I am only ever going to defend myself in true violent criminal situations? You can’t just shoot everybody that makes you mad. You can’t punch them in the trachea either. But if there is a real dangerous predator doing violent crime against people, kill him. But kill him efficiently. Why would you go up and get into a boxing match with a guy wielding a knife?
I don't believe that armed citizenry adds to violence. In fact, I believe that armed citizenry sometimes deters and often cuts-short violent criminal acts. I would never get into a fist fight in a bar. But, if a madman came into a bar and started shooting or stabbing people, and I was in a location where I could do something about it, then I would certainly stab the bastard. That caveat is crucial. I wrote about the Las Vegas Shooting and how you can't accomplish the legal use of lethal force if you are not in a position to do so.
All of the preceding is basically a book report on my takeaways from Tim Larkin's new book, When Violence is the Answer. I really, truly encourage reading it. www.timlarkin.com to order a copy from Amazon and get enrolled in the online program. He is the best philosopher of violence I have come across. He really delves into the two types of violence: one is a social situation, like the young man who got into the bar fight. The other is an asocial act of a professional predator, where there is no posturing, no yelling back and forth, just a rapid application of lethal violence in a cold and calculated manner. There are significant legal and physical penalties for getting the two confused. Stop training for a play-ground fight that is wholly avoidable, and start training to kill the truly dangerous sociopath. And train to kill him in the most efficient way you have at your disposal at the moment. If that is an M1 Abrams tank, then use it; if it is just a pocket knife, use it. Unarmed combat is the last resort; that doesn't mean you shouldn't study it, it means you should hope to never have to use it because you have some sort of tool to extend your physical abilities.
Next Week: Why We Instructors are Frustrated
Thanks,
Soule
Easy 6
As I write this, I literally just got back from a fascinating conversation about the topic. I was telling a friend about what I have been writing about when a young man at the next table asked to join us. He asked me what system of martial arts I would use if somebody came up and threw a punch at me in the bar. I told him none. Instead I would offer to buy the assailant a drink. He then told me and my friend a story about inadvertently spilling a drink on somebody at a bar, and then offering to buy the guy a drink. The offended party took a swing at him. This young man was a martial artist who blocked the punch, kneed the guy in the gut and then kneed him in the temple. Then, he ran out of the bar. I asked him, why did you run? He answered because he was afraid of the legal consequences. That proves the point!
This is a great illustration of what self-defense is not. I told him, the martial arts instructors he had been studying under for ten years had lied to him. The technique he used was not self-defense. If it had been, he would not have feared the legal consequences of kneeing a person in the temple. I said it was great martial arts, but it was not justifiable self-defense. You can't knee a person in the head, causing Damage, when there is no legitimate threat of death or grievous bodily harm.
Then the "What Ifs" began in the conversation. Well, what if he had connected and knocked him to the ground and the guy started kicking him in the ribs? Or, bashing his face in? Or, stomping his ribs and puncturing a lung? All of these are really good technical questions about martial arts. They have nothing to do with actual Self-Defense. My answer is why didn't he just walk away after his apology was rejected?
True Self-Defense is combat. It does not matter if you are armed or unarmed. If you are not justified in shooting somebody, or stabbing somebody, then you are not justified in maiming them with your bare hands. My young friend did not get it. I told him that he (and I) had been lied to by martial arts instructors about the definition of self-defense. They told us that it was a technique to end a fight. Kneeing somebody in the temple is a good way to end a fight. It is absolutely an over-reaction to a school-yard pissing contest.
If it is not a combat situation, meaning a situation in which you face death or grievous bodily harm, then there is absolutely no justification for causing death or grievous bodily harm to the other person. He is very lucky he did not kill that person.
But, don't I have a right to defend myself? Sure you do. But, why did you get into the altercation in the first place? Why? Because egos got involved. Be a gentleman, apologize and offer to make recompense. If your offer is refused, then walk away. If you try to walk away, and are still assaulted, then, and only then, could you justifiably hurt the other person. That is a self-defense situation. That is a situation where somebody is deliberately preventing you from leaving by their use of force.
The problem with the martial arts is that they train people to be able to do something, but don't explain when it is appropriate to do something. I used to teach people how to use a weapon for intimidation. Until a friend of mine got charged with "Menacing," for doing just that. He was trying to not hurt somebody, but nonetheless broke the law. It was not a situation in which he would have been justified in using the weapon, so brandishing it is an unjustified show of force. Bashing someone's temple in because of a misunderstanding at the bar is also an unjustified use of force.
There is absolutely no reason for a bar fight. I have been in a lot of bars. I have spilled drinks in bars. I have had drinks spilled on me. I have never not been able to use social skills to resolve any issue I found myself in. Tim Larkin calls it "The Three Day Test." Every action of violence you are a part of must pass this test to be justified: three days from now how will this instance effect my life? Will I be in jail? Will I be in a morgue? Will I put somebody in a morgue over a spilled drink, or in an intensive care unit? Is any of that worth it?
If you are not justified in killing the person, it is not self-defense, and it is not worth getting into a bar-fight over. Now, if the guy comes into the bar and starts stabbing people at random--which is happening now in parts of the world--then by all means knee him in the gut and then in the temple. That is self-defense. Which, to me, begs the question why are you not armed? I would not have to knee such a person in the head, because I would either stab them or, in another setting, shoot them. I carry a gun or a knife everywhere I go, and I have never had to use either of them since returning from Iraq. But why would I put myself at a disadvantage if I am only ever going to defend myself in true violent criminal situations? You can’t just shoot everybody that makes you mad. You can’t punch them in the trachea either. But if there is a real dangerous predator doing violent crime against people, kill him. But kill him efficiently. Why would you go up and get into a boxing match with a guy wielding a knife?
I don't believe that armed citizenry adds to violence. In fact, I believe that armed citizenry sometimes deters and often cuts-short violent criminal acts. I would never get into a fist fight in a bar. But, if a madman came into a bar and started shooting or stabbing people, and I was in a location where I could do something about it, then I would certainly stab the bastard. That caveat is crucial. I wrote about the Las Vegas Shooting and how you can't accomplish the legal use of lethal force if you are not in a position to do so.
All of the preceding is basically a book report on my takeaways from Tim Larkin's new book, When Violence is the Answer. I really, truly encourage reading it. www.timlarkin.com to order a copy from Amazon and get enrolled in the online program. He is the best philosopher of violence I have come across. He really delves into the two types of violence: one is a social situation, like the young man who got into the bar fight. The other is an asocial act of a professional predator, where there is no posturing, no yelling back and forth, just a rapid application of lethal violence in a cold and calculated manner. There are significant legal and physical penalties for getting the two confused. Stop training for a play-ground fight that is wholly avoidable, and start training to kill the truly dangerous sociopath. And train to kill him in the most efficient way you have at your disposal at the moment. If that is an M1 Abrams tank, then use it; if it is just a pocket knife, use it. Unarmed combat is the last resort; that doesn't mean you shouldn't study it, it means you should hope to never have to use it because you have some sort of tool to extend your physical abilities.
Next Week: Why We Instructors are Frustrated
Thanks,
Soule
Easy 6
No comments:
Post a Comment