The importence of accurately gaguing threat level.

I think all of us here would (I hope) agree that it is not right to go about maiming and killing just because some of us may have learned how.

I think that all of us here would also agree that it is CORRECT to defend yourself and others from aggressors.

Now I recently saw a thread advocating spearing the eyes as a technique for street combat. The first response on that thread was an ethically sound admonishment to never do any sort of thing.

This raises an important issue: how do we balance incapacitating an aggressor to the point that they cease to offer aggression without using unreasonable force?

Now I don't pretend to be a professional ethicist so I don't think I have all the answers to this quesion. But I do have some opinions I am willing to share.

1: The best way to end a confrontation is to never engage in one. If the opportunity to PREVENT a fight from occuring arises it should be siezed readily by ANY trained fighter.

2: The second best way to end a confrontation is to prevent the parties from engaging in struggle. This can be done by separating the parties using force. However if there is more than one person wanting to fight and if there are not an equal or (preferably) greater number of people restraining the would-be pugilists this may not work. This also will be less likely to work if you are directly participating in the conflict rather than intervening to defend the security of another.

3: The third best way to end a fight is fast. If a person can not be talked out of fighting and if a person can not be restrained they should be put out of commission as fast as possible. Broken bones will heal in time and even a small bone (when broken) provides sufficient pain to quell most aggressors urge to fight.

Fingers, toes, feet, wrists and noses are the easiest bones to break. Although arms and legs will (if broken) leave the aggressor less able to act they are also much harder to break, especially if the defender is the physically inferior individual.

After broken bones the next best way to end a fight is to damage soft tissue with a high concentration of nerves. This means groin shot and (yes) eye shot are high targets. The point where the jaw meets the neck and the sides of the neck in general also make good targets as do any spot on the head soft enough to present a viable target. There is one target that should be avoided in any altercation except for the most severe and that is a strike to the front of the throat; this is probably the most dangerous point to be struck on and can cause death sometimes.

A fight should be ended fast but remember the weight of law and of ethics lies on the victor of a fight more heavily than the loser in most jurisdictions and if the fight is in legitimate self-defense you will have be able to demonstrate that you acted with no more than minimal force to end the situation. This means that permanently maiming targets by (for instance)poking eyes or biting ears should be avoided unless an aggressor proves to either be too persistent to be put down by less or too physically superior for any other strategy to work.

This is where judgement becomes important so I think the most important rule is:

STAY CALM!

I would say that u made a good speech there!lol!anyway when a mortal combat occurs u have to be sure tht ur enemy is down and stays down!meaning u hit vital areas and critical spots such as knee,groin jaw,solar plexus,lower ribs,armpit,throat,kidneys and back of the neck!when i train i train like i am surrounded with a lot of them so everi punch,kick and strike must ko,kill or incapacitate!it is very important to train in thAt way and to maintain discipline and spirit to go for a kill!if u do so the enemy will see it and it will fear u and possibly wont even start a fight!i rather dont start a fight then to fight and to let my oponent "live"!cus bastards always keep coming for more heheh!

SimonM, I completly agree. Using your eyes and brain are so important in the real world. Also, I don't care what country you're from, overeacting in a self-defence situation can land you in serious trouble with the law. Just avioding violence is the best defence. However even if you can't aviod it you need to assess the situation. If someone simply starts a fight with you, you DO NOT have a license to beat the living crap out of them and put them in hospital.

I myself found myself in the middle of a pub brawl years ago (nothing to do with me, just didn't get out of the way quick enough) and had to defend myself. Depite, at that time, training in TKD, I just couldn't kick. I didn't feel it was justified in a simple brawl. Luckly my dojo did a lot of hand work and I was able to block, throw a punch and just get out of there. If I had kicked, I would have esculated the violence and probaly have a whole bunch of guys coming for me.

My point is if you just train to break bones and beat people to a pulp, you may, like me, find yourself in a situation where most of what you learnt is overkill and therefore, useless. Things like kicking to break bones, shatter knees and knock people out, eye gouging, etc, is serious stuff. You better be sure you are aware of the consequences of those techniques. I personally would only use them if I felt my (or my allies) life to be in danger.

Recently I have started doing Shorinji Kempo and Aikido. Especailly with Shorinji, the sensei always tells me to not hit so hard (my old TKD training). This is because in Shorinji, they aim to hit presure points with lightning fast strikes to disable, rather than destroy, the attacker. To me the control needed makes this far harder than just breaking bones (or boards) but I can see now its usefulness in a real situation.

Might is not always right.

[This message has been edited by JayJay (edited 03-28-2005).]

true true. i have to agree. when in a confritation with someone, you must wisely choose your level of force against someone. like the police do you should have a system of amount of force used. forinstance if their just unarmed and want a fist fight, just take them down with presure points, or any way to make them be in pain. if they still insist on continuing the force, then it's more reasonable to apply more force, breaking bones ect. But when your opponent has a weapon, and is threatening yoru life, then like the police, it is ok to use deadly force, or incompacitate your opponent.But make sure that your enemy strikes first, so it's self defence. because remember, if you are trained in M.A. the law will charge it as assault with a deadly weapon.But if used in self defence, it's ok. as long as you can prove it ofcourse.

That's a really smart post, SimonM. The way you described 1), 2) and 3) remind me of a little bit of the wisdom of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." I don't know why I was reminded of that book, but your post got me thinking of it.

~CF

[QUOTE]Originally posted by journeyoflife:
That's a really smart post, SimonM. The way you described 1), 2) and 3) remind me of a little bit of the wisdom of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." I don't know why I was reminded of that book, but your post got me thinking of it.

~CF[/QUOTE]

Probably because I read a lot of strategists like Sun Tsu and Musashi in my youth and then read a lot of ethicists like Aurelius and Kierkegaard in University. My position is simple: Violence is wrong and causing the violence to end as rapidly as possible is best. I have been in a few fights in my day. I have usually escaped from these fights with no more than offensive injuries (cut knuckles and fingers). However I have avoided more fights than I have been in by simply talking my way out of the situation and calming any involved parties, this is the best solution. Otherwise there is too much risk of becoming a bully.

I agree with the original post but I place purposeful bones breaking after the KO or Choke out, I think is kinder and gentler.
And it ends the threat a guy with a broken nose can still fight, though he is impaired and in great pain. Another strike there would certainlly test his fight drive and making him want to stop.

I feel that the if you can't talk your way out of a situation and have to fight your way out. I think the semi-unconcious or unconcious state is the safest for me and the assailant, sometimes you can catch him and lower him to the ground other times it happens so fast you just monitor him for injury.

Working techniques for the threat level is a sound practice. But like others have posted initally you don't know what the level is, until fists start flying.

I measure threat level at that point by how vicious his attack or how many are attacking. If a guys armed or really good I might strike his eyes with a finger sweep and if its more then one person attacking me I'm certainly looking for that oppurtunity.

But initially I want a quick ending weather its knocking the wind out of him/them, knocking them down or make them gag for breath or grab their eyes it depends on them or him. You can't go in half cocked/over confident you must evaluate and re-evaluate while the battle roars.

I place the KO 1st, maiming facial & Limb breaks 2nd (though a facial fracture could be part of the Ko s&%t happens), Eye or center line throat counter/attack 3rd, and so on...

Some guy's mouth plus their fist can talk themself into a pretty good a$$ whipping but you can't let their lack a$$ coverage have U end up in prison or jail(sometimes jail or scout car detention is unavoidable until the smoke clears).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Neko456:
I think the semi-unconcious or unconcious state is the safest for me and the assailant,
[/QUOTE]

Although there is merit in what you suggest it is not always that easy. Some people have marvelously hard heads and may resist all but the most determined efforts to KO them. Again we cannot assume that we will be physically superior in a fight. If the aggressor is strong enough (or dirty enough) to avoid a choke and has too hard a head to KO the would be KO-er will be facing an angered opponent who still retains complete functionality. Perhaps the nosebreak is one that we can agree on but I still think that causing persistent pain is more likely to end a fight than attempting to cause unconsciousness.

I agree with the bulk of your supposition but would steer clear of getting between or trying to separate folks that are getting ready to go at it. I've seen the "good samaritan" get clocked way to many times. Other than that...valid points are made in your post.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by snakeeel:
I've seen the "good samaritan" get clocked way to many times. Other than that...valid points are made in your post. [/QUOTE]

Yeah; I have taken a couple of lumps in my time but it hasn't done any lasting harm.

I agree simon, force should only be used when absolutely necessary. And when force has to be used, I prefer the phrasure, absolutely necessary force. We who train have quite a bit of power when it comes to fighting, and with that power comes an equal load of responsibility.

If I feel as though my safety is in danger, I'm going to eliminate the danger. That means I'm gonna run if I can, hide if I can't. And if those don't work, and there's no way to avoid a physical confrontation, I'm gonna go at it 110% until the other guy is down or running away, or until I have an opening where I can run or hide.

I'll never attack anyone for any reason. If someone attacks me, they're taking the risk that I'll be a better fighter than them. If they want to assume that risk, that's frankly their problem.

When things turn bad in real life, I'm not gonna hold back. I don't know what kind of a fighter this guy is, what kind of training he has, if he has a knife or a gun, or 10 friends just around the corner waiting to back him up if he gets in trouble. If I assume he's not as good as me, and soften up my techniques to avoid hurting him too badly, he could surprise me, and I could end up beaten or stabbed. That means I don't have the luxury of going easy on him like I would a new student in the dojo. If he gets hurt, that's not my concern - he shouldn't have attacked me.

So yeah, if someone attacked me and the opening presented itself, I'd strike his eyes or anything else that I could to end the fight as quickly as possible.

I posted this awhile back. I believe it's relevant.

[QUOTE]When I think about being inexplicably attacked, the rubric I believe I would use is as follows:
Beat: the attacker would stop after giving a beating (maybe for emotional or intimidation reasons)
Maim: the attacker wants to cause serious harm short of killing
Kill: the attacker has murderous intentions for me (for whatever reason)
Dangerous: the attacker is skilled, strong, or fierce or a mixture of the three that poses a serious risk

Alright, say I was attacked by a non-dangerous person with intent to beat. I would respond with intent to beat back. Whereas if the person had intent to maim/kill, I would respond likewise.

If a person whom I gauged to be dangerous attacked, I would probably step up a notch (one level of force higher, like the police do). I.E. they want to beat me, I maim them, they want to maim me, I kill them.

If there were multiple non-dangerous attackers, I would react the same as against a skilled attacker.

Is there anyone willing to constructively criticize this criteria? I'm also quite interested in the legal aspect. At what point is action illegal?

Disclaimer: Please don't insult my intelligence. I know that running is the best option, in fact I've stated before that track is the best art for self-defence. Also, I don't need to be told that it all depends on the situation. Of course it does. I'm just looking for some help with my ideas.[/QUOTE]

If you want to critique it, go ahead, but that was a different thread.

My critique would be, how do you know which category your attacker fits into?

If I'm attacked, I have no idea if he's gonna beat, maim, or kill me. I have no idea how dangerous he is, or how many dangerous people are nearby watching him, or what his intentions are. All I know is that he's attacking me.


This "necessary force" concept is a very noble one to have in the abstract, but in the real world it's not possible to know what necessary force is without taking the risk that you underestimated what force was necessary.

I will do anything to keep away from a confrontation. If I am in a violent confrontation, then it is against my will, and not of my doing, by definition.

I will do what ever it takes to take the other guy down, and keep him down for me to feel that I can get safely away. unfortunatly, I am not as strong or fast as I was when younger, and I am not as accurate, either. which means I will be aiming for the groin, throat, eyes, and a few other points, and I will be throwing every once of my 280 or so pounds, and every bit of strenght I can get into it. and if I believe that he will be able to then get up and pursue me, I will keep blasting at him.

if he didn't want the agrevation, he should have left me alone.

I agree with the people stating its almost impossible to tell the threat level initially, facail expression can be misleading when I fight getting hurt or doing the hurting am told I have a slight smile on my face. It maybe subconcious, but whatever.

I judge by his intent, power in his motion, recklessness and determination to hurt. His skill level is determined later. But counter measures are full powered (U can hit hard but not to vital areas, thats the break I give em) and non stop until the situation is under control.

Sometimes after flooring a guy or when you really sink a strike you can see the fight leave out of him, his whole body responds defensively even if he stumbling forward.

As the law allows you use only enough force neccessary to halt a threat or stop an attack, when cameras or witness are around.

If I'm in a heated competitive fight and I gain an advantage it is hard not to weep what I've sowed (mount & pound or stomp), but I have trained myself to stop once his eyes start rolling or when he's hurt really bad. Who wants to live the rest of his life in prison just because a guy busted your nose.

I have had some fights were I was almost unscratchted but most of the times my left hands, lip, nose or jaw are swore or busted.

Street fighting hurts don't let anybody tell you it don't.

As mentioned running is the safest method, and avoiding conflict is the sure victory.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bushinoki:
...and with that power comes an equal load of responsibility.[/QUOTE]

'Spiderman' reference, right? lol kidding

This must be one of the discussions where people agree the most! SimonM has spoken words of wisdom. I would like to add to his some of the wisdom I have gained through my own training. When you learn to shatter wind-pipes, to break bones, to gouge eyes out, to kill with one strike, you understand how fragile we are. This sense of frailty leads to infinite compassion: knowing how fragile life is, you learn to become responsible about your newfound ability to destroy it. I believe the fundamental lesson of martial arts is that life is sacred.

I seem to recall that line being used in Spiderman, but I've also read it many times in books by various authors. But just to reinforce the concept, our President (US) has under his control several thousand nuclear weapons, including hundreds of H-bombs capable of destroying almost half of California. Doesn't matter where the line came from, it seems to be true to me.

"No matter who says it, truth is still truth." Enemy Mine

[This message has been edited by bushinoki (edited 04-12-2005).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anarchist Cook:
This must be one of the discussions where people agree the most! SimonM has spoken words of wisdom. I would like to add to his some of the wisdom I have gained through my own training. When you learn to shatter wind-pipes, to break bones, to gouge eyes out, to kill with one strike, you understand how fragile we are. This sense of frailty leads to infinite compassion: knowing how fragile life is, you learn to become responsible about your newfound ability to destroy it. I believe the fundamental lesson of martial arts is that life is sacred.[/QUOTE]

I would add that sometimes in training we get the feeling that people are more fragile that they really are. sometimes people are tought that it is easier to kill, or crush that it really is. it can often happen in a real life situation that what you are facing can pose a huge threat to you that is not as easy to answer as you might hope or have been trained. your responsibility is to make sure that the threat is under control in the most complete way possible, as quickly as possible.

actually the number of nukes USA has can destroy the WORLD 10 times, now that is overkill. In my opinion you gauge your force level on the force level of your opponent. If he is trying to kill you then sadly your only option would be to horribly maim him ie. knee reconstuction (18 pounds of pressure breaks a knee), or kill him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Shadowfax:
My critique would be, how do you know which category your attacker fits into?

If I'm attacked, I have no idea if he's gonna beat, maim, or kill me. I have no idea how dangerous he is, or how many dangerous people are nearby watching him, or what his intentions are. All I know is that he's attacking me.


This "necessary force" concept is a very noble one to have in the abstract, but in the real world it's not possible to know what necessary force is without taking the risk that you underestimated what force was necessary.[/QUOTE]

Aye, but you have to understand, that this isn't advice that I'm giving to someone online. This is me. I am a rational, intelligent person who is perfectly capable of making a judgement based on a person's behavior. Of course, I can't always judge correctly, but by simply knowing that there is a correct response, I can act much more assertively. Besides...

"They're more like guidelines than actual rules..."-Pirates of the Caribbean