Avoidance in self defense vs. meeting threat when defending others: what are your thoughts?

I believe the issue you seem to be struggling to understand is the nature of avoidance and its context as a principle in various situations. From a philosophical perspective regarding the avoidance concept it applies to avoiding conflict by all possible means. When narrowly applied to an individual it is based soley on that individual's abilities and skill sets to identify and meet a threat with appropriate avoidance strategies.

However, when one broadens the context to include others under the direct care (or guardianship) of the martial artist who are not equipped with the ability to defend themselves and identify potential threats early enough to employ avoidance strategies then by the very nature of the event avoidance strategies failed at the point where the threat becomes clear.

When all possible means of avoidance are exhausted and escape is not an option then the traditional martial arts strategy is to engage with full intent and to use all skills and training to eliminate the threat in the shortest amount of time possible.

As a guardian or protector of those in our care who cannot possibly defend themselves we still seek to avoid conflict but are bound by filial duty to defend our loved ones by any means necessary at the point where avoidance strategies fail.

It is easy for me to try and judge a situation and adapt to a threat in progress when I am confident in my abilities to defend myself. However, there is no question whatsoever that my 19 month old daughter cannot cope with a violent attack and survive it. I scale my response to a threat to the weakest member of my group who I am bound by duty to protect.

In my experience with advanced practitioners of the Traditional Martial Arts and most in the modern martial arts I have not seen a deviation from this philosophy that you are describing.

You know what's very interesting? This attitude is found in abundance in nature. Check out this video and contemplate it in regards to this question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9EaoLiO-iE

All the answer we need can be learned from watching the hamster. ;)

Having trained in martial arts and really knowing what I'm doing, I think it would really be the right thing to do in avoiding any sort of confrontation involving myself. It's not a sympathy for the person wanting to hurt me nor is it a pigheadedness about my own skills, but the simple fact that I don't have to prove anything to anyone other than myself and I pretty much have done that already.

I don't like to see things getting hurt, let alone innocent (or at least undeserved) people taking abuse for someone else's problems. Violence is something that really shouldn't be tolerated and I would want to do what I could to help someone if I was there and able. My mindset and ideals on this is pretty much a Watsuki Nobuhiro/Rurouni Kenshin kinda thing, and has even before I read it.

I used to be somewhat of the bully type when I was young and personally know people who didn't stop progressing like I did. It's sad to me and I'd love to be the one to jar some since into people just like that, and if not at the time, later when they have to time to think about it.

I think everything you said is *the* proper and correct mindset of martial arts. It's the difference between selfishness and selflessness. Anything with the "self" in mind is, for lack of a better word, evil. From crime to religious sin -- it all comes from a selfish place. Anything regarded as Godly, just or good is always without the self and not having put yourself first.

No matter what it comes down to influence. Though I think everything you said is correct and the right way, it all comes down to how you live/lived, influences (parents/teachers/friends), religious view and up-bringing... basically what you choose your theology in life to be.

Firstly I would try and identify the danger and remove myself and loved ones from the situation before it turned violent.

If that failed I would try and resolve the situation peacefully by talking them down, escaping, or surrendering my insured phone and £10-30 cash I might have.

If forced into a confrontation, peaceful resolution failed, and escape is not an option (would be difficult with other family members) then I would fight with intent to end the encounter as quickly as possible, either by causing harm to the attacker or more ideally disabling them to allow escape.

If there was no threat to me but threat to a family member and I could not remove them or resolve the issue peacefully then again I would fight.

As for the level of force, generally fights happen however they happen and the outcome is difficult to control. However if I had the chance I would attempt to use the correct force against the force of the attack. For example if it were some 14yro bully then I would attempt to knock them down or subdue them without causing real harm, if its a nutter with a knife then I would do whatever is needed including causing very severe harm and injury to the attacker.

Protecting others requires more power than just protecting yourself.

Normally, people who know how to use lethal application side of H2H training, are confident and powerful enough that they don't need to prove anything to anyone else with respect to their abilities. They are comfortable letting things go because they're not scared of the mugger demanding the money. They're making a rational decision that it's less of a hassle to fork over cash rather than do something about it. Yet there is no doubt in their mind that they can do something about it. They just don't want.

Now, of course, if this was back in history and somebody wanted your money, that's money that goes to feed your children and you aren't just going to "get it back" in another day or so. Economic calculations, thus, generate different decisions. You don't even need to look back in history. Look at Africa. If you let thieves sneak on your property and steal you stuff, that's crops and material you need to feed your family. That's why you wait for them and then kill them with firearms. The police aren't going to come. If they do, they'll demand a "price" but not do anything effective.

When you hear something like "I'll kill him" coming from someone with no doubt that he can generate the will and possess the tools to do so, is far different from somebody reacting out of emotion or ego that says "I'll kill him". The voice tone and the body language are completely different in nature.

"The general thread seems to be: avoid conflict when it's about self defense, but when your loved ones are involved, you meet the threat in order to defend them at all costs."

It's pretty simple really. Keeping your family safe means also keeping yourself safe. If you take on threats unnecessarily, you are putting resource pressures on your family as a result. If you get jailed cause you were being stupid, how is that a benefit to your family? If you end up with a manslaughter charge, how is that going to help them?

On the other hand, if someone tries to cripple, maim, kill you, that's an indirect threat to your family as well. Because they're going to lose you permanently if you allow it. Or lose a permanent part of your ability to protect them or earn money to support them.

"I aspire to be able to do the same."

To be more clear I ask whether you mean you are attempting to reach that level or believe you have already reached that level of ability/focus?

As for whether MA instructors should or should not focus on this, I have no opinion really. They can do as they wish by their own judgment.

I try to convey this approach to my students and fighters for the most part for a couple of reasons. The reason why I say for the most part is that today there are people out there that will kill you for your wallet or the money in your pocket irregardless if you cooperate or not and each situation being different they have to make the decision for themselves at that point in time as to how to handle it. I will also add that there is a DOJ study out there that found that in about half of those situations where victims were hurt seriously it did not matter if they cooperated or not. That says something I think about the mentality of those that prey on others and that cooperating is not insurance that you will not be hurt anyways.

This is why awareness and avoidance is so important and for people to cut down the odds and not be singled out or caught in such a situation. This is also complicated by the fact that some live in areas or places where life is cheap and crime is very high and I live less than five miles away from such an area and occasionally have to travel through it.

As for defending those weaker, that I also try to impress on my students and fighters along with empathy for others. One of the reasons why I fought full contact was to show and prove to others that in spite of being a nice guy I could also be tough and mean in the ring as well as help a friend establish his school and I was very successful with that. Martial arts and fighting is about control among other things and show me someone that does not have self control and almost anyone can more easily defeat or beat them. You have to temper your actions and ability to hurt someone with good judgment and restraint sometimes even much like a policeman carrying his side arm and using it.

As for daughters I can understand the intent of your friends statement and while I don't have any children I understand his statement and reasons behind it and don't overly disagree with it. Perhaps when he was standing there making it he was sending someone a verbal message to not bother his daughter and someone had shown an interest in her in a negative or bad way. Stupid men sometimes say such things only to realize later that it is someones wife or daughter that they were referring to and have put their foot in their mouths.

Those weaker or incapable of protecting and defending themselves deserve that protection from us I think because that is one of the things that separates us from animals and the mentality of those that prey on such people I think. Even if it is not my child or loved one it is certainly someone else's and not making some kind of attempt to do something to shelter or protect them in some way says something about a person who has the ability to do so but does nothing I think. While they are not the same as those that prey on people they are weak and warped like them none the less for not doing so.

Good question Shiro.

I believe that you should avoid conflict whenever possible. This would include if family is present. I also agree that if they were to put their hands on a member of my family and I was convinced they would harm them in any way. I would end the threat immediately. If at anytime you feel as though your life or family lives are in danger you should do whatever is necessary to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones including using deadly force.

Edit:

Clowns,

You know we have a lot of respect for you. But I hope you keep this in mind. There is one thing to threaten your son and another thing to be a threat. I say if the person is just making threats you can still walk away. But if the person is actually perceived as a threat. I believe in using deadly force.

I am a Pastor and I have no problem using deadly force or teaching my children or students to use deadly force.

I agree with the mindset of trying to avoid conflict, mostly. There are situations where I wouldn't back down even if I wasn't in life threatening danger. Say for instance an unarmed mugger tells me to give him my wallet, he would have to take it from me. I wouldn't give him whats mine just to avoid violence, its not the right thing to do and it is promoting injustice. I would fight the mugger because I personally feel that it is promoting crime when you allow criminals to win when you have the reasonable means to stop them. However if he had a gun, I'd obviously give him my wallet and if he had a knife I would try to talk him out of it but I would still draw my own knife to allow him to realize what he's getting into.

My thoughts on the matter of using force to protect loved ones are that you should always defend the people that you care about. I don't mean that when a drunk guy insults your girlfriend you shoot him or break his arm but when it serious you have a duty to your family especially, to protect them. I can say without any hesitation if someone tried to hurt or take my little sister, they would be hemorrhaging when I was done with them.

Avoid when you can. When you can't, fight.

If I'm on my own and a guy is getting mouthy, I just walk away. If he pulls a gun and asks for my wallet, I give him my wallet. If he pulls a knife, I try to talk him down.

If he wants to fight and nothing I can say will dissuade him, then I'll have to fight. But I'll only use force commensurate with the threat.

If I'm with somebody, my loved ones, family or friends then I'll still try and avoid trouble, guiding my companions out of troubles way. However, again if I can't get away or my loved ones are threatened I will terminate the threat.

If someone is trying to hurt my children. Then again, I will terminate the threat.

Be confident in your skills and trust in your training.

I believe that your mouth and brian are your best weapons in any self defense situation. There is a world of deference between giving up your wallet or giving up your family. I teach to always try to diffuse the situation when possible, escape if it is not possible to talk them down. However if someone lays hands on me or a family member of friend for that matter, with intent to harm, then time for talking is over. When it is time for a physical response it should be overwhelming and immediate. My response isn't so much guided by who is with me , but rather the situation itself.

"A figurative interpretation relies on historical and other factors. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality."