self-defense distance…

[Montana]

Hey wait! I got Member of the Month???

 

COOOOOOOOOOL!

[Spartacus Maximus]

@Montana

to answer some questions about the initial situation and antagonist..

The agressive/threatening person and the defender are perfect strangers.

The agro person is enraged and initiated the situation by closing, while shouting threats, insults and with obviously threatening gestures. 

He is definitely closer than anyone would let a stranger get, especially an obviously violent one. 

There is no significant size/weight difference. He shows no signs of being intoxicated.

 

[bushido_man96]

On 5/10/2025 at 5:50 PM, crash said:

take one step back, not only to distance yourself just out of reach but to also plant the rear foot into a forward fighting stance, while not being too obvious. at the same time reach up to just above waist level and loudly demand "stop" . this gets your hands up but looks like a separate gesture. loudly demanding a "stop" gives an opportunity to take control of the situation. if he is verbally threatening, he is also probably stating a reason for his anger. if its a misunderstanding or misidentification you now have a chance to change the "conversation" or convince him otherwise. from here, maintain control of the direction of future events. command he back off. tell him to keep his hands visible, no sudden reaches for his pockets, etc.... take and maintain control.... regardless though, if he takes another step you are now in a position to strike first. and justifiable. 

I like all of this, but I like it better about two or three steps before getting into the personal space zone.  The raised and outstretched arm also provides a nice index; if he brushes up to your outstretched hand, then he's probably got a palm heel coming from the other one.

[sensei8]

On 5/6/2025 at 11:18 AM, Spartacus Maximus said:

At what point would one be justified in using force against a physically and verbally threatening, aggressive person?

When one feels threatened. That’s when the perceived danger is real TO THAT PERSON.

Of course, that perception varies from person to person. There’s no shame in running away from ant perceived threat whenever safe to do so.

It’s embedded into me to not move backwards whatsoever but to advance in any forward direction. Why would I do this if I perceive danger?? 

My turning around gives my attacker an advantage; an advantage that I can’t afford. I can no longer see what my attacker is doing. I’d rather have my attacker turn around instead and put him/her at the disadvantage, no matter how slight that might be.

I wrote an article here at KF back in 2014 titled “CLOSE RANGE SPACE MANAGEMENT” that I believe is relevant to what we’re discussing. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to figure out how to add that link  to my post here…sorry.

 

[crash]

3 hours ago, sensei8 said:

 

It’s embedded into me to not move backwards whatsoever but to advance in any forward direction. Why would I do this if I perceive danger?? 

My turning around gives my attacker an advantage; an advantage that I can’t afford. I can no longer see what my attacker is doing. I’d rather have my attacker turn around instead and put him/her at the disadvantage, no matter how slight that might be.

I wrote an article here at KF back in 2014 titled “CLOSE RANGE SPACE MANAGEMENT” that I believe is relevant to what we’re discussing. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to figure out how to add that link  to my post here…sorry.

 

i agree on not moving backwards as in actually moving more than one step, maybe two at most. but in this case or similar, taking the one step back (just getting into a solid "ready" position) does one thing that is vital, it makes the attacker/aggressor change position, even if unnoticeable. it makes him think on a subconscious level that slows the thought process. same with the "stop" command. its all a mental game at this point. fighting is about control. once you have that control you lead the direction of the outcome. ever sparred with someone who seemed to know your every move? if analyzed it is almost a certainty that they at some point early on took that control and led the match. its not that they knew your every move its more they led you to where they wanted you every time. even if you didnt see it, you were playing catch up and led to defeat. that is one part of sparring that is often overlooked, especially with the lower belts who are more focused on technique and what may or may not work in a real life engagement. but the "slight of hand" leading where to go is just as important. its like,  why do we train to fight either right or left? so much so that either is comfortable and second nature... just changing this simple position can throw many people off their game. most people arent trained or practice this enough so the average person is at a disadvantage when you change to lefty instead of what they are used to.... the subtleties can be a game changer, especially early on, and can position for a first strike if necessary....most people only think of "controlling the opponent" with actual contact,or only after hands have been engaged, but the act of control starts as soon as a threat is percieved... i will try to find the article you wrote. would be very interesting i think to read.

Edited Thursday at 08:26 PM by crash

[KarateKen]

As other have said, the decision can be based on several factors, but I'd say as a general rule if you honestly feel it is unsafe to be where you are, I would get out of there as soon as possible.  

[Spartacus Maximus]

Would any or some types of action be more appropriate considering the agro person has not initiated any physical contact, though close enough to smell his breath.

Obviously the threat is there, but some actions might be legally/ethically better.. Assuming that escape is impossible without dealing with the threatening person. Is a strike more justifiable than a throw, a lock or a kick? 

 

[sensei8]

2 hours ago, Spartacus Maximus said:

Is a strike more justifiable than a throw, a lock or a kick?

More justified?? When you’re in danger?? The justification is to prevent from being harmed at any means.

Imho!!

[KarateKen]

5 hours ago, Spartacus Maximus said:

Would any or some types of action be more appropriate considering the agro person has not initiated any physical contact, though close enough to smell his breath.

Obviously the threat is there, but some actions might be legally/ethically better.. Assuming that escape is impossible without dealing with the threatening person. Is a strike more justifiable than a throw, a lock or a kick? 

 

If I was ever in a situation where I had to fight for my life, I would do whatever I had to do to survive, and deal with the aftermath of that later.  As the old saying goes "better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." 

[crash]

8 hours ago, Spartacus Maximus said:

Would any or some types of action be more appropriate considering the agro person has not initiated any physical contact, though close enough to smell his breath.

Obviously the threat is there, but some actions might be legally/ethically better.. Assuming that escape is impossible without dealing with the threatening person. Is a strike more justifiable than a throw, a lock or a kick? 

 

he is a stranger, has clearly and extremely invaded your space in a threatening manner. verbally assaulting you, escape is impossible, a clear and present danger. this is a situation when a first strike is better than letting him make first contact. and knowing nothing of him or his background it should be hard and fast. not gently as in a hold.... is a strike more ethical than a kick or throw??? no, a kick is just as strong as a strike and a properly executed throw can be even more devastating. in a close quarters situation as this you use what is available.