Self-defense without violence?

[George Ledyard]

Originally posted by Tetsutaka
"self-defense without violence is impossible."

That is a very dangerous and irresponsible notion. Anyone who does not think that running for one's life is an adequate self-defense has never had his life truly threatened.

...unless there is a technique for running away violently that I have not learned yet...

------------------
Houston Haynes
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

Don't take this to mean that I don't think running away is not the correct response at certain times but I would like to point out a couple of things. First, running away is a form of preclusion. In other words it is actually a way of avoiding the need to actually defend yourself. It is usually only possible to do this before a physical confrontation actually starts. It is a useful strategy when a good line of retreat is open and safety lies where you are retreating to. That usually means that you are retreating to a place where someone else can use superior force to protect you. Without that, any attacker with strong intention will hunt you down and kill you anyway. So what most people are really advocating when they say to run away from an attack is that they are passing on the responsibility of dealing with the violent intentions of that aggressor to another (usually law enforcement). That may make you safe nut it didn’t exactly handle the issue. You just didn’t have to get your hands dirty (someone else will though).

Also, if you are already under attack it is almost impossible to break away and escape. If you read Grossman’s book “On Killing – The Psychological Cost of Teaching Men to Kill” you will find that he says that historically the majority of the deaths on the battlefield took place after one side or the other broke and ran. When man is exhibiting psuedo-predatory behavior as when he engages in combat, those running away are perceived in one way, as prey. Once an attack is on, assuming that the attacker has strong intention, the only safe place to go is directly to the center. Anything else is a form of retreat and will be defeated by a strong attack.

People who make a virtue out of running away are victims looking for a place to be victimized. Running away may be strategically the correct thing to do at a certain moment. But it also needs to be backed up by the ability to go to the center without hesitation if required. Otherwise it is just another form of imbalance that permits aggressive behavior to win. Look at Chamberlain in the thirties. A rational, non-violent man with the very best of intentions. And completely ineffectual when dealing with an enemy of strong aggressive disposition. Don’t make a value out of running away, it is just another technique that exist in your tool box to be used judiciously.

[Kolschey]

Mr. Ledyard,

I would very much like to say how glad I am that you have joined this thread as your writing has definitely given me a new understanding of the subject. I find your perspective on the danger of running to be quite interesting.
I certainly agree that many Aikidoka have an overly passive approach to their own defense that can sometimes border on martyrdom. Some people refuse to consider the possibility that another person may want to harm them seriously enough to endanger their life. For those who want to diminish the possibility of physical confrontation to an absolute minimum, it would seem that one must train extensively to enhance one's spirit so as to either develop a heightened awareness of " disturbances in the force" as it were, or be able to project a strong enough attitude that others will be disinclined to attack. What is ironic is that the only people I have met who demonstrate either of these capabilities are also very much prepared to engage with force if the situation requires. In regards to the fight or flight issue, my randori has not reached a level where I believe I could feasibly engage multiple attackers in a real world scenario. What do you see as effecive mechanisms for dealing with more than one assailant?

[George Ledyard]

Mr. Kolschey,
Assuming that we are talking about real fighting where the intention to injure or kill is clear (not stupid male "affective" violent behavior usually caused by the presence of Alcohol") then randori is two components. First, your movement must make it difficult for more than one attacker to reach you at a time. The more space you have for maneuver the better. It is almost always a necessity to use atemi extensively. Sometimes, if the first person you touch goes down decisively the rest back off (though not as I stated before if their intention is strong). Peyton Quinn, who is the most experienced person I know at utilizing Aikido in real fights, said it's amazing how effective an iriminage is when you bounce their head off the bar. A bit earthy a perspective for most Aikido people but a necessary one if we are talking real world.

Second, unless you are going to kill or maim these attackers then the whole point of every move you make in the randori will be to set up an unimpeded line of retreat. It might seem funny that I say this after my previous posting about not retreating but in a situation in which you are outnumbered there are two choices: even the odds by systematically removing members of the attacker group or running.

If they are intent on pursuing you then the retreat simply becomes a form of "draw" allowing you to use very large movement to separate attackers from the main body of the group so that you can deal with them individually. It's the same concept as done on the mat, but you are now using whole city blocks or whole buildings as your sphere of movement. Mostly, as I stated earlier, your preference is to get to a position where superior force is brought to your side as in find a cop or get to a place that is so public that the attackers choose to break off.

If you have followed some of the mass attack scenarios that have happened in New York lately you can imagine how scary this could be. With a mob you have no choice but to use your movement to escape. At the very least you need to reestablish a position where a group of that size can't get at you more than a couple at a time. I would refer you to the famous fight Musashi supposedly had with the members of one sword school out to restore the schools honor after he had beaten some of their best swordsmen in duels. He supposedly had a running battle out in the countryside with as many as eighty members of the school. It was vividly depicted both in the fictional biography of Musashi and the Samurai Trilogy movies.

Anyway, hopefully you avoid situations in which you need to have this kind of knowledge. If you stay away from males drinking alcohol, you are far less likely to encounter these kids of situations.


[Edited by George Ledyard on 06-25-2000 at 09:57 AM]

[Kolschey]

Mr. Ledyard,

Again I thank you. I do try to avoid some of the situations you have mentioned. Having dealt with some rather dangerous drunks in less than ideal circumstances ( One of them was a Second degree black belt in a legitimate school of martial arts ) I have learned firsthand the old adage that discretion is the better part of valour. Indeed, I am sometimes amazed at the hazards some people will endure for entertainment. One fellow I knew went to a rave in Chicago where a disenfrachised individual was threatening people in the parking lot. His buddy went outside to deal with this disturbance and was promptly confronted with a loaded gun. On hearing this story I found myself thinking "Good heavens! This is an illegal
and unsupervised gathering of children and drug dealers in an abandoned warehouse and you find yourself surprised that someone brought a gun?!? What would you do if your friend got himself shot?!" Speaking of hazards, I was wondering how one may learn to better profile various situations for possible threats.It seems that in a dojo environment, we are not dealing with many of the ambiguities of environment and circumstance that would confront us in a real world situation. Is this something that can be taught, or is it something learned mostly from experience?

[DJM]

I'd like to start by agreeing with Gil, it was a wonderful post George, one with which I agree wholeheartedly..
I'd like to cover one aspect of this discussion here, which I've been mulling over this afternoon..
While I think most people would agree that running away is one of a number of tactical options open to the Aikidoka, both in it's use to help deal with multiple attackers and as a simple 'run for the hills' retreat mechanism, I feel that the second option is one which a responsible Aikidoka should, perhaps, avoid.
I'd like to suggest that the capable Aikidoka (of which I am not yet one) has a responsibility to stop the situation with a minimal intensity, which includes a responsibility to not run away purely because that would stop the violence towards you.. The drunken bloke who's spoiling for a fight is likely to have one, and someone could get seriously hurt in that fight which could have been resolved with much less intensity by the Aikidoka.. Likewise the committed attackers, mentioned above as separate from a drunken guy, may well involve bystanders, in the event you're a quick enough runner to evade them.
Also, in the sense of running for overwhelming force to back you up, that could very well be using a sledgehammer to crack eggs - people (other than yourself, and your attackers, who can de-escalate the situation at any time by surrendering..) are much more likely to be hurt in the high intensity situation that develops.

Obviously there are instances where no matter what you do people are going to get badly hurt, but if by acting you have a chance to reduce the number of injuries, or fatalities, surely you have a responsibility to do this? Even at the risk of your own life, I would argue..

To quote, from Winston Churchil I believe (but could be wrong), "All that is needed for evil men to flourish, is that good men do nothing.."

Peace,
David

[Kolschey]

Interesting moral question that. While I would prefer to resolve a situation without the danger of escalation, there are several reasons why I would still be inclined to call opon an ouside intermediary such as a police officer.

Physical aspects

Much as I would like to project myself in the mold of a hero, I recognise that I have only been training for a short while in Aikido ( Less than five years ) While my technique may be sufficient to resolve some situations effectively, I cannot help but wonder whether I am prepared to deal with a serious attacker who may be my superior in size, strength, or just plain ol' streetfighting experience. Indeed, one of the resons why many martial arts teachers emphasise a need for prudence in using your skills is that you never know who you are dealing with. One man I know who was a well trained Karate student earned a bullet in his leg which resulted in serious damage to his tibia and required extensive reconstructive surgery. This was his reward for attempting to disarm a gunman. While I do not relish the idea of drawing a police officer or other autority into a hazardous situation, I must nonetheless recognise that they are better trained and equipped to deal with potential violent offenders. Particularly if there are several of them or they are possibly carrying weapons. If I felt that I was capable of, or prepared for the responsibility of intervening in or resolving many violent situations then it would behoove me to apply for police training and undertake a career in law enforcement. That is not to say that I will turn a blind eye to circumstances where I might be able to effect positive outcome. I am also prepared to act in defense of my family, friends and loved ones. I simply don't feel that the police will be any happier to arrive at a scene in order to wait for the coroner to inspect my dead body. " What happened here, Dave?" " Looks like this guy tried to scrap with 'Icepick' Robbins... What a mess."

Legal Issues

One of the other issues that sets the police apart from your average martial artist is that they are empowered by law to employ force. Towards that end, they are equipped with weapons and tactics which the state deems appropriate.
They are trained to make judgements based on variable circumstances and act acccordingly. If the consequences are adverse, such as an accidental shooting or a complaint of excessive force, they are part of an organisation that often will help to coach them through the subsequent investigation and any trial that arises. Having been involved in a deposition due to a simple traffic accident, I am not enthused by the idea of finding myself being gently ground through the gears of a criminal investigation or lawsuit because I found myself unable to resolve a situation that I should have walked away from and instead found myself doing grevious harm to another person in my attemt to "stabilise" the situation. Quite frankly, if the prosecuting attourney has any reason to believe that you could have avoided a violent outcome by taking to your feet and making like Roadrunner, you will be likely to find that your life becomes a waking nightmare for months on end as you are dragged through cross invesigations and depositions. I am not intersted in paying for other people's dental bills if I can possibly avoid it.
I definitely do not want to risk a manslaughter trial unless the life of someone very close to me is directly threatened. While the police may be inclined to support a clear circumstance of self defense, or protection of an obvious victim, a person who plays hero will recieve a rather cooler reception if the outcome is not a peaceful one, or the situation is ambiguous.

This is not to say that those who have sufficient experience should not work to the best of their abilities to stabilise or disarm volatile situations. If there is a real danger that somone else is about to be harmed if there is not some intercession, then perhaps may be appropriate to take the role of attempting to resolve the situation. My commentary is simply intended to suggest that there may be some very serious risks and responsibliities involved.