Disparity of numbers/size/skill

Joined
Mar 13, 2002
Messages
89
This is a subject just touched on in the practical tactical forum, but it was really never resolved.
I heard of a provision in (at least some jurisdictions) self defense law that allows for a greater degree of force to be used when defending against multiple opponents, or opponents of much greater size or skill. Can this be clarified at all? How might it actually apply?
The subject was raised in a discussion about the following question someone asked: (I hope I'm paraphrasing this right) You are being cornered (retreat not possible) by a person who is belligerent/aggressive toward you, but has done nothing overt enough to make you in "fear for your life" (no "I'm going to kill you", and no weapon displayed by the aggressor). Do you bring out a knife on him? Do you wait for more justification before doing so?
There were two main viewpoints presented: 1)That it would be a major tactical error to wait. 2)That it would be a major legal error to do it now.
I was of the opinion that, based on the circumstances described, you would not be justified in introducing a Dangerous or Deadly weapon into the situation (except that I wondered about the disparity of numbers/size/skill law). A scenario like this seemed to be exactly the reason you should train in empty hand and verbal de-escalation.
 
Do you fear that you may critically injured or killed?

If so, you should be justified in using deadly force.

On the face of what you say, the situation would appear to call for an empty hands response to what is clearly a physical assault. I would want to escape, and I would want to escape in such a way that left the assailant unable to persue. And I would do it now, before I find out what he is really planning.
 
In general, one may only use the amount of force required to achieve a reasonable self defense. In other words, if a guy grabs you by the shirt and you sweep his hands free with an inside block, then back off and leave the immediate area with no further physical contact, you've accomplished your goal of self defense.

If you sweep his hands free and then head butt him for good measure, you're now the attacker and that's a bad thing.

You can't claim fear unless such fear can be substantiated by what another reasonable person would believe under the same conditions. This prevents you from shooting a guy 12 times who pitches the finger at you and calls you a bad name, then says he's going to kick your butt.

Self defense is a very specific gig and is most often either not taught or is taught improperly in terms of students clearly understanding what the rules (laws) of the game are. I've found a good way to teach judgement (which is what self defense is all about, good judgement) is to present the intellectual points as gotten from an acknowledged authority / source, then discuss the subject with your students, then conduct scenario based training where the student is put in a situation where he or she had to make a self defense decision and take some form of action (which includes turning around and walking away).

I conducted this form of training for one noted dojo and its students regarding civilian knife carry and use. The results were impressive in terms of seeing how students used their heads after a very short time, and not their knife skills right off the bat.

Any others out there with similar training experiences or ideas on this subject?
 
I can offer two points on this subject.

My earlier training put me in a frame of mind that fights were to be won. You standing, them not, just like highschool. When I started garage training, and then started training with a JKD instructor (real deal JKD guy, certified from the Inosanto line) I radically shifted my perspective. The idea is to survive a street encounter, and that leaves you with MANY more optiosn than "winning" the fight.

Picture Greg's example of someone grabbing your shirt. After sweeping their hand away with some sort of block, why not pull a Niek dash and create space/get the hell out of there? You win fights by surviving, not necessarily by standing over a bleeding bad guy, you know? If you read Ron Baliki's new JKD book, you will get this impression as well. Michael Janich has a picture of him doing a Nike dash on the back cover of his knife fighting book (or is it the front?) If a bad guy pulls a knife on you, RUN! That is the best technique.

My second point to offer is really a story that has taught me lots the more I think about it. A few weeks ago I was walking to a mall here. There was a teacher's strike going on so school kids were out and about. I saw one highschool kid leave the mall and cross the street coming towards ne, A group of highschool kids (5 or 6, but I'll say 5) coming from a side direction made the afternoon a little more interesting. One of the kids in the group (herein called punks) yelled at the lone kid in a challenging manner. The line kid decided to go over to the punk to talk things out. At this point I was maybe 2 street widths from them. I had my 4" fixed blade at my side and I was thinking the following:

1) If this gets nasty, the lone kid is gonna need help.
2) 5 against one isn't cool at all
3) what if they have weapons?
4) are my legs ready for some running?

I also played a bit of a what-f game. If diplomacy failed and a fight erupted that was 5 agaisnt 1, I was going to be over there FAST and likely my knife would have been out in a threatening manner. 5 against 2 is not a fair fight, a knfie would have equalized things in my opinion. At the time, I thought that was the onyl way to beat back 5 kids. Note, I didn't say I would have stabbed them all! I just would have made a big show of my entry and my tools at hand. If the diplomacy had worked, I would be very happy. If the fight was one on one, I might go over and break things up anyways. i wasn't sure what to do in that case, except I KNOW my knife would have stayed where it was, in its sheath all nice and cozy.

As it turned out, the lone kid realized very quickly that the punk didn't want to talk. The lone kid made the best Nike dash I have ever seen for the mall doors and he made it before the bad guy could catch up. Ahh... lone kid survived that fight. He lost the fight in the highschool mentality sense, but in the real fighting sense, that kid won. because he survived. I was impressed. I was also happy that the fight didn't become 5 on 1 because I really didn't want to get in there wih any weapon at all. But, I think I was ready to step in where needed, and I was glad that I had something on me that could have helped stop things if needed.

I welcome questions and comments about that afternoon.
 
IMO, if you´re attacked or threatened by multiple, armed or skilled opponents, deescalation tactics seem most advisable. Drawing a knife for deterrence only is extremely dangerous, especially against multiple opponents. There is a high risk of losing the weapon to your enemies if you visibly draw it without the firm intention to actually use it in combat. If the opponents see the knife, they will almost certainly think they´re fighting for their lives.
Due to the risk of initiating a lethal skirmish by deploying a deadly weapon, I would only do so if I am sure that the particular opponents will be deterred and will refrain from further offense , or if I believe my life is at stake. If I have to defend my life (or another life important to me) I will use whatever weapon available, and commit my mental and physical resources solely to fighting, until the brawl ends one way or another, and care about the laws afterwards. I definitely prefer imprisonment to funeral.
Regarding less serious attacks, it might be a good idea to train reasonable defense moves which are not legally objectionable, i.e. the level of violence employed to defend against an attack should slightly exceed the level of violence against the attack. Thus, applying your trained skills shouldn´t get you into legal trouble.
 
Under the circumstances described by Crayola I would offer the following for future consideration -

I would have done the following as the situation was described...

Moved to where I could be seen by the group and simply watched the event with my hands in my pockets. If I had a cell phone, or something that might have been taken for a cell phone at distance, I'd have displayed it. If challenged by anyone in the group, verbally, I would have calmly responded that I was either preparing or was indeed calling the police. In most instances such a calm, disinterested but interested "involvement" will move folks along peacefully. They don't know who you are, what you are, or if it's worth finding out the hard way.

You also become a witness rather than a subject or suspect should a fight erupt.

You also provide a way for the percieved victim to ease out and away as the others are likewise doing so instead of perhaps having to run for it and being chased / caught / beaten. Group or gang mentality is to run the rabbit down when it loses its cool, then to kill it. You don't want to create a situation that wasn't there to begin with with such consequences at stake.

Folks normally do dumb / bad things when they feel or believe they are NOT being watched or recorded. When their actions come under scrutinty they tend to drift on, for all the appropriate reasons.

Drawing/displaying a knife instantly begins to involve one in a lethal force confrontation. Leave the blade or any other legally carried weapon / tool alone. These are final option methods of self defense or the legitimate defense of others. Going immediately to your Final Option eliminates all other options in between. It also invites your opponent to perhaps display and use a firearm against your knife...which you may not have considered him or her having at the time. Remember Rock-Scissors-Paper.

Savvy warriors become skilled at defeating the enemy without physical confrontation or the destruction of the enemy in a physical sense. Read Sun Tzu...and think on his teachings in this regard. Environmental awareness, the use of deception, and calm thinking / reasoning are likewise effective and the desired weapons of self defense. Study and train these as you would knife or gun. It is the well rounded warrior who carries the day.



:cool:
 
Self-Protection and Tactical Response Options Theory:


Prelude:

I am not a lawyer (just a street cop) and therefore, I am not giving legal advice. The purpose of this post is to bring to light some of the issues surrounding the legalities of self defence. One must know the laws of their specific country and ensure that any action taken in self defence falls within those laws. This post is for information only

Darren



When it comes to using force there are specific legal constraints placed upon citizens in a self defense situation. It is very important to understand that when it comes to using force, you will be held accountable, both criminally and civilly for your actions.

In my opinion, the number one legal issue when using force in a self defence situation will be, was the amount of force used to defend yourself “reasonable” the word reasonable, however, will mean different things to different people. What is a reasonable level of force to you may not be a reasonable level of force to a judge and or jury.

Tactical Response Options brings the issue of reasonable force into a set of steps or continuum which you, the police, and the courts can usually agree upon

What is the “Tactical Response Options Theory ?” it is a way that one can place any situation they find themselves in from non-violent to extremely violent and match it against a reasonable tactical response option which you may have to use in a self defence situation. There are seven categories in this theory:


PRESENCE:

Your physical presence is in fact a tactical response option. Prior to any physical confrontation, an opponent will usually size you up. If you are a person who keeps in good physical shape, then the predator will more than likely leave you alone and pick an easier target. If, however, you look like an oil slick in a bag that could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag, then you are a prime target for the street criminal. I call this “Force Presence”, and if you have it you send a clear message to a possible attacker that says “Don’t mess with me unless you’re willing to get hurt

How many times have you looked at a person who you have never seen before and said “ I would not want to mess with that guy” That is force presence. To have this tool will provide you with an added edge on the street


DIALOUGE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS:

There are basically two ways that we communicate with others:

a) verbally
b) non-verbally

always remember, if the voice and body don’t match, always believe the body ( see my post of Ritualized Combat)



EMPTY HAND COMPLIANCE TECHINQUES:

These techniques would include such things as:

- balance displacement
- superior physical strength or numbers
- pain compliance
- lever and joint manipulations
- throws and takedowns
- mechanical control techniques

Although individual empty hand compliance techniques may offer physical control by themselves, they may also offer physical control by combining with other techniques. A good example of this would be the rear bent arm shoulder lock which is usually used as a restraining technique. Although this hold would be characterized as a lever and joint manipulation technique, it also incorporates balance displacement, superior physical strength, pain compliance and a takedown, if required.

The degree to which empty hand compliance techniques will work to control an individual are dependant upon:

1) speed and strength of application: As most empty hand compliance techniques involve some kind of grapple, it is very important that the person applying the technique does so quickly and with power. If an empty hand compliance technique is applied half heartedly, it would surely fail and leave you in a position of physical disadvantage.

2) Precision of application: This is very important when it comes to pain compliance and lever/joint manipulations. In order for these two techniques to work with maximum results, you have to be target specific.

3) Resistance level of the subject: Empty hand compliance techniques should only be attempted on those individuals who are:

a) passively aggressive, or
b) stunned to the point where they are no longer actively aggressive


At no time should an empty hand compliance technique be used as a first force response option when faced with a person who is actively aggressive or, you reasonably believe is about to become actively aggressive. To attempt such an action in a dynamic situation would place the defender in serious jeopardy unless very skilled and even then, the use of these techniques are questionable.



EMPTY HAND IMPACT TECHNIQUES:


Empty hand impact techniques are those techniques which employ punches, kicks, elbows, knees and other similar techniques which involve delivering a traumatic blow to another person. These types of techniques are usually used to:

- close or create distance
- distract a subject to whom it is being applied
- enhance an empty hand control technique

The use of empty hand impact techniques can be used , when appropriate and reasonable to do, in the following ways:

a) To cause a motor dysfunction or stunning effect: this level of force would be applied to the major muscle masses or pressure points of the limbs and torso. Application of force to these body targets usually result in no long term physical effects other than bruising

b) To break bone or cartilage: If a motor dysfunction or stunning technique failed, o was inappropriate and unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances, this level of force would be applied to the joints and bones of the body. The defender must reasonably believe that they are in danger of serious bodily injury and that there are no other reasonable options available other than the use of these breaking techniques to defend themselves with.

c) Deadly force: In order for the defender to use an empty hand impact technique as a deadly force response option, certain criteria must be present:

1) the attacker must have the means to carry out the threat of death or serious bodily injury to the defender or someone under their protection. The means could include but is not limited to gun, knife, club, or any other weapon or, the attacker may be skilled fighter who has trained his ability to be deadly.
2) The attacker has the intent to carry out the threat of death or serious bodily injury to the defender or someone under his protection
3) The defender feels that his life of the life of a person under his protection is in jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury, and
4) That other lower tactical response options had failed or were inappropriate and/or unreasonable to be used given the totality of the circumstances to have stopped the threat of death or serious bodily injury to the defender or another person under his protection


All four conditions must be present in order for deadly force to be used. If faced with these four conditions, a defender may be justified in attacking those vital targets of the body which could cause death or serious bodily injury such as the throat, or spine.


WEAPONS:


It is generally accepted that there are three categories of weapons:

1) Impact weapons
2) Edged/pointed weapons
3) Firearms



Impact weapons:

Impact weapons include anything that you can grab, real or improvised, which can be used to hit another person. The biggest benefit of impact weapons are:

1) reach advantage
2) improved striking power over empty hand impact techniques
3) speed


The use of impact weapons can be used, when appropriate and reasonable to do so, in the following ways:


1) implied force presence: by producing an impact weapon the situation is deescalated to the point where the attacker halts his physical attack
2) mechanical control: here the defender may use an impact weapon to assist in the application of an empty hand compliance technique. Eg the use of a pool cue to apply an arm lock
3) to cause a motor dysfunction: this level of force would be applied to the major muscle masses or pressure points of the limbs and torso. Application of force to these body targets usually result in no long term physical effects other than bruising
4) to break bone or cartilage
5) deadly force:



Edged/Pointed Weapons:


Edged or pointed weapons are those tools which have a sharpened edge or point which may be used to cut or puncture the human body. Examples include, knives, screwdrivers, broken bottles.

In Canada, the definition of deadly force is any level of force which is designed to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Because of this definition, the use of a knife in a physical altercation in Canada ( and I believe in the USA as well) should only reserved for those situations in which one is in fear of death or grievous bodily injury. It is my opinion that a knife can only be used in one of two ways:

1) Force Presence: justified in using this level of force and by producing the blade, the situation is de-escalated to the point where the attacker halts his physical attack

2) Deadly Force
 
Firearms:

Firearms include handguns, rifles, shotguns. Again, because of the very real threat of causing death or grievous bodily injury, he use of firearms should only take place in a deadly force self defence situation. Firearms can be used in two ways:

1) Force Presence
2) Deadly Force



In Empty Hand Impact techniques and weapon techniques, the use of deadly force should only be used as a last resort but must be realized by all that it may be an unavoidable necessity to protect yourself or someone you love from death or grievous bodily injury.

It is important to understand that when an individual uses deadly force his intent is to stop the threat of death or grievous bodily injury to himself or others where lesser force response options had failed or were inappropriate and unreasonable given the totality of the circumstances



Escalation and De-Escalation Of Tactical Response Options


When it comes to escalating your options in a self defence situation, you do not have to start at force presence and work your way up. Escalation through tactical response options may take place because:

A) a tactical option chosen was ineffective, or
B) you reasonably believed, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that a lower tactical response option would be ineffective or inappropriate


there are four factors which may lead a defender to believe that lower tactical response options would be ineffective or inappropriate:

1) Attacker factors
2) Defender factors
3) Environmental factors
4) Levels of resistance



ATTACKER FACTORS:

A) Age: is the attacker 22yrs while the defender is 55. Most people who are younger are usually stringer, faster, and more capable physically
B) Size: Size has a definite advantage in a physical encounter. This is why in boxing they have different weight classes. In a physical combative situation, the ability to protect yourself id directly effected to a great extent, on the size difference between the attacker and the defender if all other things are equal. This is not a sure thing however
C) Gender: this woks for women and against men in most circumstances. If the attacker is a man and the defender a woman, the courts will usually give the woman more room to escalate quicker that if the attacker/defender rolls were reversed
D) Skills or perceived skills: What kind of combative skills and training does your attacker possess. If the attacker is skilled, a defender may have to escalate his force response options to protect himself
E) Multiple attackers: Any time a single defender has to defend against two or more attackers, the potential for the defender to get seriously hurt is greatly enhanced
F) Weapons: any time a weapon is brought to a physical confrontation, consider it a deadly force situation
G) Pre-Assaultive Signs (Ritualized Combat) See my other post on this very important topic
H) Mentality of the attacker: is your attacker emotionally disturbed, drunk, or high on drugs



DEFENDER FACTORS:


A) Size: same as attacker factors
B) Age: same as attacker factors
C) Gender; same as attacker factors
D) Skill level/physical abilities: what is your skill level and physical abilities.
E) Exhaustion: as a physical encounter goes on, the ability to protect oneself is greatly effected by physical and mental exhaustion
F) Injury: If you become injured in a street fight, your ability to protect yourself is going to be effected negatively
G) Ground fighting: the last place you want to be is on the ground in the street, especially if you are not winning. In today’s world the issue of multiple attackers is a reality. If grounded and not in control the likelihood of being severely injured by “having the boots laid to you” is an ugly fact
H) Perception of threat: When it comes to a court of law, your actions will be judged upon your perception of threat. The court will then judge your actions by seeing if your perceptions were objectively reasonable, in the light of facts and circumstances surrounding the incident, and whether you were acting in good faith. This perception of threat must be “real”. This is why it is so important that if your use of force becomes questionable, you ensure that you articulate your perception of threat clearly and concisely
I) Imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury: If you are faced with this, you must do everything in your power to protect yourself, this could include the use of deadly force
J) Position/time/ and distance: The need to take immediate action will place time constraints on a defenders evaluation of a potential hostile situation. A defenders distance from threat can reduce available time to react safely. The likelihood of making a wrong decision is greatly increased when there is insufficient time to make a thorough evaluation of threat.
K) Tactical withdrawal/ disengagement: Sometimes, if not most times, the best thing to do when faced with violence is to walk away. There are , however, times that walking is not an option, this is a call that you will have to make



ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS:



A) Hostile environment: if you find yourself in a hostile environment such as a rough bar or rough part of town, even if you win, you run the risk of fighting others around.
B) Terrain: what kind of terrain are you fighting on and how is it affecting your footing and balance. This may have a direct effect on the kind of tactical response option you choose
C) Weather: if you are fighting outside, the weather may also play a factor in balance, footing, and the ability to see
D) Lighting: Lighting usually has a direct affect on personal perceptions. Because of this fact, the ability to see, or lack thereof, may effect your tactical response option choice



LEVELS OF RESISTANCE:


A potential attacker can also demonstrate various levels of potential resistance. The type of resistance from the attacker will directly influence the tactical response option which a defender will choose to defend themselves with:


A) Non-verbal intimidation: through the use of Ritualized Combat and attacker telegraphs his intent on attacking you
B) Verbal non-compliance: this is where an attacker is showing non-compliance by being argumentative or offering threats towards you. This level of resistance is usually combined with other levels
C) Passive resistance: this is where a person does not listen to verbal attempts to de-escalate a situation. A person here will usually offer non-compliance by refusing to move but offers no direct physical assault. An example of this type of resistance is where a bouncer or doorman asks a person to leave a bar. Upon being asked, the patron says pound sand, and refuses to move from his seat
D) Defensive resistance: This level is similar to passive but at this level a person may offer defensive resistance by holding onto people or object. Back to the bar again as an example, the patron upon being moved by the bouncer now grabs onto a table to prevent such action from taking place. At this level of resistance there is no direct physical assault taking place.
E) Assaultive: this level of resistance is where a person actually offers a direct physical attack
F) Deadly force: this level of resistance is where a person is assaultively resistant to the point where his actions may cause death or grievous bodily injury. This would also include weapons



It must be understood that the levels of resistance can change very quickly within the context of a physical altercation. A person can be passively aggressive at one point and then two seconds later becomes assaultive in a deadly force context.


Again, a defenders may escalate through their tactical response options by either:

1) Choosing an option and finding it to be ineffective; or
2) Forming a reasonable belief that lower options would be ineffective or inappropriate given the totality of the circumstances


A defender’s choice as to an appropriate and reasonable tactical response option, when being threatened or attacked, will be dependant upon attacker factors, defender factors, environmental factors, and levels of resistance. Once a person chooses to become actively involved with a combative situation, they will pick one of the tactical response options as their method of physical defence.


DE-ESCALATION OF PHYSICAL FORCE:


Physical force de-escalation is based upon the level of compliance or control exhibited by the attacker in which force is used. Once a defender has stopped an attackers physical resistance or assault, escalation of force should stop and de-escalation should begin.

If the defender continues to escalate his level of force even though the attacker has stopped his assault or was defeated, he will be using excessive force and be found criminally and civilly liable for his actions. Remember, there is no such thing as catch up in a self defense encounter






ABOUT THE TACTICAL RESPONSE THEORY:


1) The theory is subjective: This theory/method allows you to apply force subjectively based upon your perceptions
2) The theory is dependant upon attacker factors, defender factors, environmental factors, and levels of resistance
3) Confrontations are dynamic and not static: each situation has its own set of unique variables so there can be no absolute rules dictating a defenders response to specific resistance.
4) The Tactical Response Theory is a tool: the theory is just another tool to use in a self defence situation just like a punch or kick. Use the theory to justify and articulate why and how you defended yourself. If you follow it, and are professional in the way you defended yourself, the theory will go along way in protecting yourself on the street and more importantly in the criminal and civil liability forum that will take place years after the physical assault is over


Remember in court, you may live by the sword, but you are judged by the pen. How well you can articulate your reasons for reasonable self defence, can make the difference between freedom or jail time, and that is what this post is all about.

If one finds themselves in trouble, also think about hiring a lawyer who knows about the above noted information !!!!!!!

As a court expert, I have used the above noted information very successfully in all levels of court here in my country, CANADA, to defend both police officers (with some significant changes to the above noted theory specific to law enforcement) and CIVILIANS who had to use force in self defense



Strength and Honor

Darren Laur
Integrated Street Combatives
 
Now that is a post worth printing! Thanks Darren. Wow, what you said was very informative. I'll bve reading it at least a dozen times.

Can you tell us more about Integrated Street Combatives? And, where are you in Canada? It i snice to bump into tactically minded Canucks on the forums. Combative Canucks are a rare breed! :)
 
in the state of tx ya are allowed to do a lot of stuff if its after dark and on your property, ya are allowed the use of deadly force during nite hours to stop someone from fleeing after burglary, stop them from escaping w/stolen property, even criminal mischeif is included

example - about 2 yrs ago near barton creek a guy caught a 17 yr old individual stealing a stereo out of his car at nite, guy ran, vic said perp made a furtive movement and vic shot the perp in the back at least once ( i think 2 times) w/a 12 gauge shotgun, killling perp - vic was no-billed by grand jury - would make me think twice (if not 3 times) about being a burglar in tx, but very few know of this provision in vernons statutes

so imho very much depends on time/circumstances/state law/and a lot of other things, every situation is different


sifu
 
As the guy who raised the original thread it's nice to see there's still interest in the question.
I teach a traditional martial art in my garage, and practice finding the hot points for my students. I learned this from my teacher :) None of them are white and I am, so I begin a casual conversation and escalate to challenging their manhood, ethnicity, family members, spitting at the ground, at them - sometimes shoving or feinting blows. Even though we've been friends and training partners for years; our families are friends, it's a scheduled exercise - we all find out fast what it is that gets them hot. It surprises them more than the people around them.
Once you know where you're emotionally weak you can work on dealing with that. Advice - be very sure you all understand what the goal of this exercise is and it's good to do at the end of the evening. Otherwise subsequent sparring can be a bit more exciting than you might want. I guess that could be good also .....
And try to do it where the neighbors don't hear!
 
Excellent post by Mr. Laur.

I've made a copy for my reference book.

Which department Darren? Please be encouraged to share any time you're in the neighborhood!
 
Crayola and Sierra912:

Thank you both !!!

Crayola, check your e-mail. I sent you a note about what we do here at my school. Given that this is Sierra912's forum, I thought it would be inappropriate to share due to "spamming" issues


Sierra912: I'm a sergeant with the Victoria Police Department up here in Victoria British Columbia Canada. Thank you for the invite to participate in the forum. Any threads that spark my interest, rest assured, I will be posting.

Again, thank you both for your critique on my posting.


Strength and Honor

Darren Laur
Integrated Street Combatives
 
Darren,

Your professional courtesy is greatly appreciated.

However, this is OUR forum and I encourage instructors with valid programs to post what they do, who they are, and how to get in touch with them on "Battle Blades". This way we all profit and benefit, not to mention learn and become better educated in the process.

Teams survive where individuals die.

I've taught in Calgary at Mr. Zack's fine dojo. Wonderful students and good learning experience.

GW
 
Sierra912:

Thanks, I'm very careful about "spamming" issues on other people's forums. So now that I have your permission this is who I am, and what I do:

My background, LEO for the past 15 yrs ( Victoria Police Department here in British Columbia Canada). Background, Studying Combatives (not martial arts) for about 14yrs. Teaching combatives for the past 9 yrs. The system I teach "Integrated Street Combatives" is not a traditional M.A., but rather an eclectic system based upon gross motor skill performance. At the school we train in what we call the six ranges of combat:

1) Weapons range ( Gun, Knife, Club)
2) kicking range
3) punching range
4) Grapple range
5) Ground fighting range
6) Cerebral Range (most important)

Here at the school, I try to make the training environment as real as possible. To accomplish this I use strobe lights, 4 speaker sound system, fog machine, wind fans, uneven flooring, 4 camera video capture system which provides 360 degree coverage for video feedback training, which I can immediately project onto a wall 20' x 20' , and I also have the ability to drive vehicles into the school. There are a number of other things that we do to increase reality in our training such as:

- Simulation Protective suits

- securing an arm or other body parts to the body, to replicate that it is broken

- wearing face masks which I cover in K.Y. Jelly to replicate having to fight with blurred vision

- blind fold fighting ( both eyes or one eye) to practise tactile sensitivity

- multiple opponent work 2 on 1, 3 on 1, 2 on 2, ect

- fighting outside in the elements. Several weeks ago my sr. students where outside fighting in the pouring rain, on a grassy hill in the dark

- students get sprayed with O.C. spray and have to fight through it for about one minute before being allowed to decontaminate

- The use of both hypnosis and NLP techniques to increase motor skill performance


I would classify myself as a "Modern Realist"
who has a "very" open mind to combatives. I do not believe that there is any "ultimate" fighting form. Every M.A. or Combative System has its strengths and weaknesses. I believe the goal should be to identify what those weakness are, and go else where to strengthen them.

This is only a small part of what I do here at the school. I hope this answers your question.

Strength and Honor
Darren Laur
I
 
Darren,

Will email you with some questions re: your school, training, and opportunities to take one of your courses.

Thanks for posting.

Sierra
 
Darren:
Your school sounds like exactly what a person who wants to learn how to fight in any situation needs. I wish I had a place like that nearby. I spent 9 years learning various martial arts all the while learning Tae Kwon Do, and now i see that half the stuff I learned with the hand, foot, and knife isn't very applicable. I commend you on your technique and style of teaching.

Peace,
Ittai
 
This is a great time to use nonlethal weapons. If someone's just standing there with a menacing look on their face, it's hard to justify using deadly force, but (depending on the situation) it might be stupid to ignore them.

Almost a year ago I started carrying pepper spray, and the following is a big part of the reason why: I was walking down the sidewalk at night, lots of cars passing by but few pedestrians on this street. Standing at a bus stop were 8 people I'll call thugs. I could have turned around and went the long way around the block to avoid walking past them, but that seems a bit extreme and impractical to do all the time; living in a big city without a car, it's not an unusual situation. As I walked past them, they stopped talking to look at me, but nothing happened. If they had decided to attack me, I would be in a very bad position, even with my Sifu. I might be able to get 2 or 3, but the rest would kill me for sure (esp. after I knifed their friends). But you can spray 8 guys much quicker than you can knife them. If I spray one, the rest are more likely to back off, whereas if I knife one the rest will attack. This, of course, is assuming that OC works, and I've read that it does, but I haven't seen/tried it yet. In a situation like this, OC might be a more effective weapon than a knife. It's also much easier to justify.

I just posted a version of the following in another thread in PracTac, but it applies here too:

As far as I know, you're not legally justified in drawing a weapon unless you're justified in using it, and you're not justified in using it if it exceeds the force being used against you. That means you have to wait till he draws first. That's a great way to lose.

I lurk a lot on TFL & GT, they seem to have a larger percentage of cops & lawyers than we do, and the question of to draw/ shoot or not comes up there a lot. One of the best (sounding) pieces of advice I saw there was (paraphrased from memory), "don't ask if you're allowed to shoot, ask if you have to." That makes a lot of sense to me. If you have to shoot (cut), you have to to save your life, then all legal issues go out the window until afterwards; if you don't have to, then put it back in your pocket and live peacefully another day.

I'm 5'6", 140#, if someone who's 6'5" 300# attacks me, or 2 or 3 or 8 smaller people, the odds are against me. I may have to use a weapon, even if he's (they're) unarmed, in order to survive. If that's the case, I won't let a paragraph in the penal code stop me.
 
Back
Top