The Intent Of The Escape

[sensei8]

Most of every MA teaches escapes within their curriculum. You grab me, then I escape from you one way or another, the most advantages way possible; effective preferred.

Separation degree's can be either short, medium, and long ranges. A short range keeps your attacker within your range. A medium range keeps your attack just outside of your immediate range. A long range keeps your attacker more than just outside of your range.

In the short range, I've not placed my attacker so far away from me that I can't re-engage immediately if I need to. In the medium range I've placed my attacker far enough away from me that I'll have to make movements that will bring my attacker close to me. In the long range I've now made it where more than a few nominal movements will bring my attacker close to me.

Imho, separation should be the only intent of any escape. Once my attacker places his/her hands upon me, I need to separate/escape from him/her asap. Once separation is achieved, get away from your attacker asap. The longer the range, the longer it'll take your attacker to re-engage with you.

What will be your culpable means when/if you've escaped/separate from your attacker and you don't run away to a safe haven? If you hit more than what's necessary, then you might face jail or more.

My job as a MA instructor is to teach the MA; in this case, self-defense/escape to the best of my abilities. My job as a MA instructor isn't to teach and/or be your ethics and morale mentor, that job is for the student and/or someone else, imho.

Doing steps 1 to 4 aren't realistic because of the unknown parameters, and in that, treat the "steps" as only possibilities that one might use as individual technique(s), they're more valuable in that context.

I intend to escape with whatever means available to me, and nothing else beyond that except if I'm forced to re-engage with my attacker.

The intent of the escape is to do just that and nothing more than that!!

[MasterPain]

While I encourage and train the escape mentality, I feel there should always be training to re-engage effectively. Separation can be used to re-engage to a more dominant position, weapon deployment, to make better use of aspects of the environment, ect.

As someone who is short and heavy, and hopefully someday- old, I may need to injure an attackers mobility before escape is a viable option. Also, I could be defending someone less mobile. Some of my training partners are law enforcement, who's job will require that they control the situation. In that, I feel that all options should be trained, with escape taking high priority when feasible.

[bushido_man96]

In the short range, I've not placed my attacker so far away from me that I can't re-engage immediately if I need to. In the medium range I've placed my attacker far enough away from me that I'll have to make movements that will bring my attacker close to me. In the long range I've now made it where more than a few nominal movements will bring my attacker close to me.

I have trouble seeing a "long range" escape, especially being outside of any kind of range, unless there is a big leap or some such after a technique in the escape. Most of what I've done and taught in Hapkido have been in the close range. We then finish the separation with either a release, which allows a chance to decide to follow up if necessary, or retreat if applicable. Or, the technique ends in a lock, with a finishing strike to hopefully incapacitate enough to escape or detain.

Imho, separation should be the only intent of any escape. Once my attacker places his/her hands upon me, I need to separate/escape from him/her asap. Once separation is achieved, get away from your attacker asap. The longer the range, the longer it'll take your attacker to re-engage with you.

In a perfect world, yes, escape would be how the grand scheme ends. But, escape isn't always a first viable option. You can escape and turn tail and run, but if the attacker pursues, then you've turned your back to him/her; not good, unless you have world class speed. So, release and evaluate is a better option, in my opinion.

My other consideration comes from the LEO point of view. We want to detain, not escape, so its important that my training reflects these goals.

What will be your culpable means when/if you've escaped/separate from your attacker and you don't run away to a safe haven? If you hit more than what's necessary, then you might face jail or more.

The ability to justify further action must be appropriately articulated. So, its important that the end of a training scenario be broken down in an evaluation setting in order to practice this kind of articulation. That's also where "separate and evaluate" comes into play. Learning to evaluate the attacker's intent, and explain what you saw the intent was, will go a long way in making your case as to why you did what you did.

My job as a MA instructor is to teach the MA; in this case, self-defense/escape to the best of my abilities. My job as a MA instructor isn't to teach and/or be your ethics and morale mentor, that job is for the student and/or someone else, imho.

I always agree with this.

[yamesu]

I may need to injure an attackers mobility before escape is a viable option. Also, I could be defending someone less mobile. Some of my training partners are law enforcement, who's job will require that they control the situation. In that, I feel that all options should be trained, with escape taking high priority when feasible.

Agreed.

I train all, but for the most part, its to stay in med-short range, and damage the opponent so that two things are possible:

1) You can enter into submission tactics to subdue, or,

2) You can make a viable escape.

In reality, simply disengaging from a grab and trying to make a get away may not be an appropriate option. There may (as MasterPain suggested) be other people involved, there may be a need to subdue the other person, or the attacker may simply be stronger and faster than you, in which case - all disengaging is going to do is give them a chance to place themselves in another offensive position.

[bushido_man96]

In reality, simply disengaging from a grab and trying to make a get away may not be an appropriate option. There may (as MasterPain suggested) be other people involved, there may be a need to subdue the other person, or the attacker may simply be stronger and faster than you, in which case - all disengaging is going to do is give them a chance to place themselves in another offensive position.

And likely with your back turned to them...

[JusticeZero]

If you put them on the floor with a fair amount of momentum, and your parking stance is a runners block position, it helps some as far as buying a couple seconds that they then have to make up.. Most situations, you're probably actually fairly close to other people. Also, engaging in a pass of combat and winning that pass by disengaging and disrupting should leave an attacker uncertain about the results if they continue the fight - running away then gives them a way to gain face and declare victory in spite of having lost the exchange.

[bushido_man96]

Those are good points. I don't think a runner's stance would buy me too many more seconds. Fast is not something I've ever been.