Is "how much force to use" the wrong question?

[Liver Punch]

While watching my black belt test the other day (and complaining about how miserable everything I did looked) I ran into the Q & A session of the test. An answer I gave was in response to a group question regarding when deadly force is a proper response to any given situation.

My response was basically that you shouldn't want to use it under any circumstances. I further clarified my point by saying that you shouldn't be looking for excuses to seriously hurt anyone. I was first reminded about how passive I am during tests (vs my normal embrace of aggression) but then started to think about how our normal line of questions during tests may be pointed in the wrong direction.

We always discuss "how much force can be used in some random scenario". I think that maybe a more passive/minimalist approach might be appropriate, such as asking "how little force can you get away with in a random scenario". This stresses the idea that you're generally non-violent and aren't looking to hurt someone as badly as the law allows. It further promotes the idea that you should be looking for a way out of combat, not looking for a way to get into it.

I once read an article in a 1980's Karate Illustrated or some such publication about a common mistake that point fighters were making with new techniques. It talked about how you'd learn a technique, practice it, and master it. The next step was using it in a tournament. These guys were getting there and becoming so obsessed with landing their new technique that they not only couldn't land it, but weren't landing anything else because they were only focused on that one technique - they had complete tunnel vision.

The idea that you become obsessed with using something doesn't seem to be stuck in places like point fighting. Stories about guys wanting to use their martial arts skills on the streets to help someone so badly that they get into unnecessary fights aren't uncommon. This sort of thing happening with concealed carry permits isn't unheard of either. It's part of being human, and tunnel vision isn't something we want anyone to have when determining how much damage to cause someone else.

An attitude that "if a, b, and c happens, you get to kill this guy or whatever" isn't an unfathomable place to get. When someone is fresh off the street and a low rank, it's important to drive home the point that you may have to feel and cause pain to survive one day. High ranks in combative systems have usually come to terms with the implications of real life situations. Perhaps at this level, instead of looking for reasons (or even excuses) to elevate your amount of force, our conversations should gravitate toward finding reasons to lessen our outbound punishment as evidence and circumstances allow.

[tallgeese]

Good question. And I think I've been part of multiple of tests where similar questions were asked. Don't you hate the sound of your own voice?

Anyway, I can see where you're coming from and it's an area that need complete discussion within any school that even looks in the direction of combative application of the arts for self defense.

I'm big these days on teaching the use of of force needed. Period. No as little or as much as you can, just what's needed. It's the safest in terms of teaching people to not UNDER respond (a major problem) and not getting people so worked up that they move from self defense to aggravated battery (which is what I think I was geared towards during some of my days of training- thanks USBBA).

This teaches a fluid mindset in regard to use of force. This should go hand in hand with fluid mindset as far as tactical application of tools. Your response has to go up and down the scale as your bad guy attacks and desists. So, if he throws a punch and you evade and counter with a strike, your good. Then you launch a double leg to control him. So far so good. If he puts his hands in submission, you need to not strike him from your new, super- cool dominate position. If however, he retrieves a knife from his waistband, you'd best be ready to drive your tactics up to meet the force. So maybe you check the draw and up your bludgeoning and clubbery to his head (or check his draw and present your firearm to escalate- whatever you've got handy).

If at this point (assuming you haven't deployed a .45 round in a contact shot) let's say he has a bit of your bullying and decides to stop trying to get his knife arm free. He drops the knife and tosses it aside cries uncontrollably. Now you need to adjust down, stop beating him about the head and neck (or re-engage the safety on your pistol) and start making use of your joint position training to control him in a fetal position until the cops get there. Maybe provide some career counseling on why attacking random people on the street is a bad idea (I'm not above amusing yourself a little here on a cerebral level).

This sliding application really get to the heart of the issue and trains people not to under or over respond without getting caught up in some artificial "use of force continuum" (a system used in law enforcement that we created ourselves to be confusing and unnecessary. State and federal law says noting about the concept nor has any use of force rulings in case law ever).

[Liver Punch]

I'm big these days on teaching the use of of force needed. Period.

uncontrollably. Now you need to adjust down, stop beating him about the head and neck (or re-engage the safety on your pistol) and start making use of your joint position training to control him in a fetal position until the cops get there.

I think these two points sum it up completely. In law enforcement, there's a knowledge that every second of a conflict will be scrutinized. Someone will assess every moment and weigh all the variables to ensure that you didn't mess up.

In non-law enforcement, there is sometimes an almost unspoken one-way street that doesn't allow the amount of force to be reduced based on the actions of the attacker at that moment. It's the idea that if does "A" I can do "B, C, and D to defend myself. And then if he does "X", I can apply Y and Z. It almost becomes a matter of bringing "bigger weapons" to the fight until it's over. I don't think we always verbalize that if at some point he stops trying to kill you (particularly if you're controlling the situation) that you might want to stop trying preemptively kill him.

I'm not claiming that combative arts are producing plagues of people looking to increase their force to the maximum level in any altercation that arises. Rather, from time to time, instead of carving up our training partner with a rubber knife that they attacked us with a moment before, perhaps we might control their actions and give them a talking-to.

I think in drills we visualize the other person as a terminator who's only objective is to kill, and won't stop until we crush them in an industrial press. Once control is gained over them, we could downgrade their status to "moron who is no longer a serious threat and would be best dealt with by people with handcuffs."

Edit: And yeah - the sound of my voice is horrible. Tallgeese taking a crutch away from someone off camera and then walking around with it doing rifle drills out of pure habit was much funnier than anyone can imagine. Luckily it's on tape.

[bushido_man96]

I think you make a good point here. There is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid any kind of need for confrontation for as long as can be possible. In fact, most of us well-balance human beings don't really have any desire to seriously hurt anyone. This is a good thing. There is something to be said to learning how not to fight, just as much as learning how to fight.

I do think, that when the time comes, its important to understand force levels, necessary levels, and justification of use of force. What is important in training is recognizing the type of danger one is in, and then applying force in an adequate manner. With that in mind, it is never good to underapply the amount of force necessary to stay safe. I think thats where the rub lies, too. It can be tough to discern at times, and when the adrenaline sets in, things can appear much different in that time than they are. In the end, getting home safe is the key. But you are right in alluding to the idea that it doesn't mean someone has to die in the process.

[tallgeese]

Edit: And yeah - the sound of my voice is horrible. Tallgeese taking a crutch away from someone off camera and then walking around with it doing rifle drills out of pure habit was much funnier than anyone can imagine. Luckily it's on tape.

Is that on tape? Oh boy...

[JusticeZero]

Exactly a concern I have had about a lot of things I see.

Someone threatens you with a knife and says that they are going to kill you. An opportunity arises that the threat is momentarily distracted, and you could extricate yourself safely from the situation with a gentle push and a short, slightly brisk walk. Do you:

 

A: gently nudge the guy away and leave, or

 

B: try to draw a pistol and shoot the threat, since you are permitted the use of deadly force in this situation?

It seems like way too many people talk as though B is the best option.

[Groinstrike]

I'm big these days on teaching the use of of force needed. Period.

uncontrollably. Now you need to adjust down, stop beating him about the head and neck (or re-engage the safety on your pistol) and start making use of your joint position training to control him in a fetal position until the cops get there.

I think these two points sum it up completely. In law enforcement, there's a knowledge that every second of a conflict will be scrutinized. Someone will assess every moment and weigh all the variables to ensure that you didn't mess up.

In non-law enforcement, there is sometimes an almost unspoken one-way street that doesn't allow the amount of force to be reduced based on the actions of the attacker at that moment. It's the idea that if does "A" I can do "B, C, and D to defend myself. And then if he does "X", I can apply Y and Z. It almost becomes a matter of bringing "bigger weapons" to the fight until it's over. I don't think we always verbalize that if at some point he stops trying to kill you (particularly if you're controlling the situation) that you might want to stop trying preemptively kill him.

I'm not claiming that combative arts are producing plagues of people looking to increase their force to the maximum level in any altercation that arises. Rather, from time to time, instead of carving up our training partner with a rubber knife that they attacked us with a moment before, perhaps we might control their actions and give them a talking-to.

I think in drills we visualize the other person as a terminator who's only objective is to kill, and won't stop until we crush them in an industrial press. Once control is gained over them, we could downgrade their status to "moron who is no longer a serious threat and would be best dealt with by people with handcuffs."

Edit: And yeah - the sound of my voice is horrible. Tallgeese taking a crutch away from someone off camera and then walking around with it doing rifle drills out of pure habit was much funnier than anyone can imagine. Luckily it's on tape.

Good discussion here, and kudos on the terminator reference. As a potential LEO I have been going over scenerio's in my head and what i have found is that i am going to need a certain level of reprogramming, which i am sure i will get at PTI. Due to the background of our system(USBBA, PM, MH) we get conditioned to up the ante any time you are attacked.(which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

The problem with that is as an LEO, you can't break somebody's arm after you have them in a nice controlled positioin face down on the ground. The LEO will have more tools as his or her disposal ie. Handcuffs, pepper spray, guns, and most importantly backup. The random person on the street may be alone, unarmed, and outnumbered.

So i guess you could say that my biggest fear is using to much force out of fear, and as a LEO this cannot happen.

edit: I to hate the sound of my own voice when it is on tape, and seeing tallgeese clearing corners using a crutch as a rifle while intermentintly asking liverpunch and myself about the combative philosophy of our system was priceless.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Groinstrike

[Montana]

What I teach my students about the amount of force to use in a survival situation (real fight, not tournament) is basically what the law states, and that is that you should use the amount of force necessary to insure your survival and safety, and no more than that.

However, what I also teach my students is that if you are faced with a situation, such as a home intrusion where your life, or someone else's, is in danger and your truly feel that you could be killed, then the use of deadly force may be needed to keep yourself, or someone else, from dying.

Over the 30+ years I've been doing the arts, I've often thought about what I would do if someone broke into my home and held my family and I at gunpoint with the possibility of my own, or a member of my family, being killed. I think (nobody really knows for sure until it happens) that I would not hesitate to do everything in my power, whether it is using the martial arts, a knife or a gun, to kill the home invader.

Basically, I feel I would, and could, do anytthing I had to do to keep myself and my family safe.

[MasterPain]

So, we discussed this thread wit Sensei Jones, and he said it's a matter of semantics, and of course no more force should be used than is absolutely needed.

10 minutes later, he has a knee in GS's face, a knee in his ribs, his arm immobilized and in a wristlock, mae tekubi, and a rubber knife in his free hand. So after the 3rd rubber knife stab to the armpit of a person in a fetal position with an arm that could be destroyed on a whim, he suddenly stops, looks at the training knife with a look of surprise, grins sheepishly and explained that it's all his teachers' fault.

[bushido_man96]

Exactly a concern I have had about a lot of things I see.

Someone threatens you with a knife and says that they are going to kill you. An opportunity arises that the threat is momentarily distracted, and you could extricate yourself safely from the situation with a gentle push and a short, slightly brisk walk. Do you:

 

A: gently nudge the guy away and leave, or

 

B: try to draw a pistol and shoot the threat, since you are permitted the use of deadly force in this situation?

It seems like way too many people talk as though B is the best option.

This brings up an interesting point in regards to which can you do, both being viable answers, and which should you do. Everyone is wired a bit differently, so everyone will have a different tendency.

The scenario could be broken down to elaborate on each of the different options, and which is the best based on different critirea. As an instructor, I think I would definitely tell my students that the goal is to get away, not be a hero.