Article: Use-of-Force Continuum in Ho Sin Sul

[bushido_man96]

This article springs from reading the book Ho Sin Sul; Conceptual Self Defense, by Daeshik Kim and Jung Nam Lee.  On pp. 17-18 of that book is a section titled “Levels of Application.”   Reading that section made me think right away about the use-of-force continuum that applies heavily to law enforcement, but also how there is a force continuum that applies to civilians as well.  Although a civilian won’t be held to the same standard that a law enforcement officer would, a continuum still applies, and if instructors neglect to instruct their students on this along with teaching physical self-defense, they do their students a disservice.  I have written a previous article titled Force Continuum for the Civilian Martial Artist, which can be referenced here: 

After reading this section of the book, I felt like it provided a framework to start from for an actual civilian use-of-force continuum.  It could probably be better fleshed out, but it’s at the least a good place to start the conversation from.  According to Kim and Lee, there are five possible levels of application: Escape, Control, Breaking, Take Down, and Final Response/Take Out.  As a law enforcement defensive tactics instructor, complying with the use-of-force continuum is a very important aspect of training.  As a Martial Arts instructor of the general public, I find it’s an important topic to present to them in order to do the best job I can in helping them protect themselves from an attack, and in a courtroom should their actions land them there.  Reading this section of this book sparked a fire, and I hadn’t written anything in a while, so here we are.  Brace yourselves, I’m going to ramble.

Level 1: Escape

Described by Kim and Lee on pp. 17:

Quote

“Escape is the easiest and is almost always requisite to the initiation of the next levels.  Before the practitioner can successfully handle a self defense situation, he or she must first avoid the attack of an aggressor.  If grabbed, the practitioner must usually (but not always) remove himself from the grab before control can be applied and certainly before the threat posed by the aggressor is eliminated.  At this level, the practitioner may have done enough to successfully counter the aggression and further response is unnecessary.”

This level would be very low on what I would refer to as the “civilian use-of-force continuum.”  If you can respond to an attack in such a way as to deter the attacker’s original intent, then that’s a win.  Most predators are looking for easy prey; they don’t want to get hurt and they don’t want to get caught.  Any sign of resistance, such as releasing confidently from a grab and getting into a defensive position, could convince them they’ve chosen the wrong target.

What would be even better is learning to recognize pre-contact cues that would help you recognize that an attack is coming and move into position pre-emptively for a solid defense.

At this point, enough has been done that going up the use-of-force continuum may not be necessary.

Remember, I am discussing self-defense situations here, which are often ambush attacks, and not a mutual, squared-up challenge to a fight.  Those are two very different scenarios.

Level 2: Control

As stated by Kim and Lee in paragraph two, pp. 17:

Quote

“The situation may, however, demand that the practitioner move to the second level of response.  This level involves controlling the assailant through one of the joint locking techniques of ho sin sul.  Once the practitioner has gained control of the aggressor through a second level technique, he or she can assess whether further action is necessary.”

At this point, we are looking at gaining control of the attacker as opposed to escaping.  Perhaps this is someone who “just wants to fight” and so continues with their aggression.  As Kim and Lee state, by gaining control through some lock or hold, we are in position to assess the threat levels and give commands to gain compliance.  This is very much what I teach the law enforcement officers I instruct, as it is necessary to avoid excessive use-of-force while accomplishing the goal of apprehension.  In the civilian instance, apprehension is not the goal.  Escape is the goal.  The civilian martial artist can use this position of control to determine what kind further force is necessary, with their safety as the primary goal.  The civilian martial artist can still give commands to gain compliance.  If compliance is gained and it is safe, we can hold until help or authorities arrive, or disengage and get to safety, and use-of-force can stop.

The most important aspect of use-of-force is taken from this section:

Quote

“…he or she can assess whether further action is necessary.”

This is what I emphasize to not only the officers I instruct, but also to our students when teaching self-defense, and when teaching self-defense seminars.  It is not impossible for the person attacked to have roles reversed and become the aggressor, depending on the circumstances.  When enough is accomplished and an attacker is retreating, chasing them down to “teach them a lesson” can end up with an otherwise good person facing some charges themselves.  These can be extreme circumstances, to be sure, often the stuff of movies, but it can and does happen.  It is important to work in scenarios when training, and to provide opportunities for the practitioners to see where they have gone far enough in self-defense, and when they have gone too far.  De-briefing scenarios afterwards is a good way to learn.

Level 3: Breaking

The last part of paragraph two, pp. 17, states:

Quote

“At the second level, the practitioner has the option of breaking the joint of the aggressor that is being controlled.  Thus, breaking constitutes an optional third level of the ho sin sul response.” (emphasis added).

This is where we get to the point in self-defense where things are becoming really serious.  Sometimes, something can happen so fast and a defender could be so afraid of great bodily harm or death that they commit to a technique 100%, and with such speed and conviction that a joint or bone gets broken in the process.  If this is an unintended occurrence, a defender should be sure to articulate that in the wake of the situation.  When sliding up and down the force continuum, it is important to not only be able to articulate how one felt when defending themselves, but also the words and actions of the attacker, especially one with weapons.  If they say, “I’m going to kill you,” that would be important to articulate later on in justifying the amount of force you used.

I placed emphasis in the phrase of the above quote for a reason; to emphasize that the most extreme use-of-force is not necessary in every situation.  Again, it is important to assess the situation as it develops to determine how to continue.  I know this is easier said than done, but it is still an important aspect to train.

If a weapon is involved, control becomes even more important, and an attacker’s reluctance to relinquish that weapon may lead you further up the use-of-force continuum.  A solid control hold may have to result in a break of the joint/limb, which could be easily justifiable.  Even a person without a weapon who continues to fight and demonstrates intent to harm you may require that you break a bone or joint in order to get them to stop.  This can be very easily justifiable.

Level 4: Take Down

Kim and Lee, paragraph four on pp. 17:

Quote

“At the next level, the practitioner takes the assailant down with a throwing technique.”

If controlling the opponent in a hold isn’t working, a takedown may be necessary.  It can be easier to control someone on the ground by limiting their mobility, as opposed to standing and the attacker still having some mobility.  It’s important to note that this step can be reached without breaking a joint or limb in level three.

The takedown could be one of two varieties.  One, in which the attacker and defender both end up on the ground, with the defender hopefully in a controlling position, preferably on top.  The other, in which the defender is still standing, and the attacker has either been forced down to the ground in a controlled manner or slammed to the ground via throw.  Both have their pros and cons, and preference will likely be based on the defender’s skill level and knowledge base (BJJ/wrestler vs Aikido/Hapkido/Traditional Jujitsu).  A slam could be disabling, but if it isn’t warranted, it could become problematic later on.  If a weapon is involved, justification for a disabling takedown is much easier.

Now, I would be remiss in stating the obvious here in that it would not be necessary to go through levels one, two, and three in order to get to level four to justify a takedown.  This book was published in 1988, and since that time ground fighting has become much more prominent.  Many skilled practitioners would be comfortable in taking an adversary to the ground from the start of a confrontation.  One could also argue that a takedown falls into level two, control.

It's important to keep in mind that use-of-force can be fast-changing and isn’t always fluid.  Kim and Lee state in paragraph five on pp. 17 and 18:

Quote

“These levels are not so rigid that they must always and inevitably proceed from the first through the fifth; they are only intended to serve as a framework to aid in the understanding of ho sin sul.  The practitioner must be a “thinker-on-the-feet” and must quickly determine how much of a response is appropriate for a particular self defense situation.  The prime purpose of self defense is to defend oneself from aggression through the successful removal of a threat.  An aggressor that gives up the attack at the first level of response is no longer a threat and does not deserve a broken arm or a concussion.  It is the responsibility of the practitioner to choose the appropriate response.  Discretion is always the responsibility of the serious martial artist; indiscriminant (sic) use of technique is never tolerated.”

In the early days of use-of-force in law enforcement, it was called the use-of-force “ladder,” in which it was expected that you crawled up each “rung” of the “ladder” in order, one at a time (or that was the argument, anyway).  It is now taught as a “continuum” on which one can escalate or deescalate at any time based on how the situation evolves and changes.  A situation could very easily go from a simple escape, to a presented weapon and the need to defend life with deadly force.  Always analyze and reassess!

Level 5: Final Response

Quote

“The fifth level, which we have called the final response, is utilized if the aggressor still poses a serious threat at the completion of the fourth level.  The final response involves the execution of a striking technique borrowed from tae kwon do or a choking technique borrowed from judo.  The fifth level is intended to render the assailant unconscious and thus eliminate further threat of attack.”

As Kim and Lee mention here, this level is at the top of the force continuum.  They speak of striking the opponent most likely while they are down, or choking them out, in order to neutralize them.  When considering this course of action, it is very important to be justified in doing so.  It may be that the attacker refuses to relent, or that a weapon is still a clear and present threat.  Many things can come into consideration, and I cover those in my other article (size disparity, female vs male, age disparity, etc.).  The authors don’t actually mention using lethal force, but this is the point at which it could come into play if necessary.  It would be for the best if mere incapacitation could be achieved.

As I have said previously, a defender must constantly analyze and reassess the situation in order to protect themselves other than physically.  To quote Kim and Lee again:

Quote

“Discretion is always the responsibility of the serious martial artist; indiscriminant (sic) use of technique is never tolerated.”

Conclusion

I hope this has been informative and interesting to read, as well as helpful when considering self-defense.  I love to delve into the use-of-force continuum and how it relates to self-defense.  If it generates some discussion, that’s great as well.  Thanks for reading my ramblings!

 

[Wastelander]

Definitely an interesting read, and resonates with concepts that I learned and how I teach, as well. Thanks for sharing!

[bushido_man96]

Thanks for reading, @Wastelander!  I'm glad you enjoyed it.  It's cool to see we have similar thoughts on the subject.  Love it!