self-defense distance…

[bushido_man96]

On 5/16/2025 at 9:22 AM, 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? 

 

When you are looking at matters like this, from a legal standpoint, then you have to consider what a reasonable person might do in this situation.  Not necessarily consider what skills he has or doesn't have.  What is a reasonable response to someone entering your space unwarranted?  To push them away or strike them?  If you felt fear for your safety, then yes.  The key is CYA - Can You Articulate you actions after you take them.  You are very focused on what actions one should or should not take in a scenario such as this, but what you should be more focused on is if you can articulate why you took the actions you took against this aggressor.

On 5/15/2025 at 11:30 AM, 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'm the same way, and it's what I teach in my Defensive Tactics sessions.  Too many bad things can happen while backing up.  For one, you probably aren't able to see where you are going and what you might be bumping into or tripping over while backing up.  You might run yourself into a wall, limiting your movement; you might step off a curb and get hit by a car; you might trip on something and fall on your back, inviting a ground fight you may not want.  These things in themselves are all dangerous, and add to it the variable of an unstable individual acting towards you in a threatening manner, and it adds up to not good all the way around.

On 5/15/2025 at 3:14 PM, crash said:

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.

Agreed.  This is the amount of stepping back I teach in DT.  Drop step back into a good base, and from there, everything else should be forward or at angles.

[Wastelander]

On 5/6/2025 at 1:18 PM, Spartacus Maximus said:

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

using force=any action requiring physical contact: strike, throw, lock etc..

To narrow the discussion down a bit, consider it in this context:

The aggressor is physically threatening. He has already come into your personal space. He hasn’t touched you, yet he is in your face aggressively pointing/poking his finger.

Lastly, this hypothetical is in a weapon-restricted context. Blades and firearms are highly regulated and illegal to carry without legitimate reason. The aggressor might be armed, but you are far more likely to encounter a pointy/cutting object. 

In this situation, at what point would you be legally(where you live) justified in using physical force(any physical contact)? 

Are any responses more appropriate than others? Perhaps a joint-lock is a better option than a throw or a strike, for example..

Obligatory: I am not a lawyer, and you must refer to the laws in your country/region/state/locality/etc, because they can be VERY different depending on where you are.

Where I live, now, use of force in self-defense is justified if the victim sincerely believes there is a credible threat to their safety or the safety of someone else. This means that, in your hypothetical scenario, use of force is justified if you sincerely feel that your safety is threatened by the aggressive man invading your personal space. Generally, deadly force is only justified to stop grievous bodily harm or death, so it would not be appropriate to, for example, stab the aggressor in this scenario, unless they were larger/stronger, supported by a group, or had a weapon of their own, and you felt that your only way to stay alive was to end their life. You may have to testify to this in court. It's also important to bear in mind that, legality aside, maiming a person or ending their life with a weapon is VERY traumatic, and you will almost certainly need mental health services after the fact.

As for the techniques or weapons you use, there is generally a force continuum that should be in place in your self-defense skill set to appropriately deal with threats, because if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if all you have is a firearm, everything looks like a target. People like to say "there are no rules in the streets" and "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," but there ARE rules--they're called "laws"--and if you end up in prison, you didn't make it home safely, which is the whole point of self-defense. The force continuum that you use is going to vary based on your training, but for me, I like to group things as follows:

1. Low-risk threats (verbally abusive, escalating speech, shoving, etc.) - Escape and evasion, or restraint using pins and joint locks
2. Medium-risk threats (punches, kicks, headbutts, etc.) - Escape and evasion, or strikes, throws, joint dislocations, and strangleholds to disable/knock out attacker or deescalate threat level
3. High-risk threats (significant physical disadvantage, group violence, weapons, etc.) - Escape and evasion, or purpose-built and improvised weapons, strikes, throws, joint dislocations, and strangleholds to potentially kill or disable/knock out attacker or deescalate threat level

Now, escape and evasion isn't always possible, and sometimes even when it is possible, it may not be the best course of action, such as in the case of a home invasion where you need to protect your family from the threat. Additionally, everyone's lines between those levels of threats will vary, based on a number of factors, not the least of which will be physical characteristics and level of training. The more physically gifted you are, or more well-trained you are, the more intense a threat generally needs to be for you to consider it an escalation. Someone who is 5ft tall, 100lbs, with zero training, could see a threat as high-risk that someone who is 6ft tall, 200lbs, with 10 years of training would consider to be a low-risk threat. Of course, your level of awareness is also going to come into play, because someone with a heightened sense of awareness could notice a knife in someone's pocket, or someone circling to get behind them, raising the threat level to high, while someone with a lower level of awareness might completely miss those things and mistakenly believe that they are in a low-risk situation.

[bushido_man96]

On 5/19/2025 at 3:00 PM, Wastelander said:

It's also important to bear in mind that, legality aside, maiming a person or ending their life with a weapon is VERY traumatic, and you will almost certainly need mental health services after the fact.

This is very true, and hardly any self-defense/Martial Arts instructors ever address this.  It is very real and it is very important to get the help if needed.

[KarateKen]

Keep in mind too that situations where someone is attacking or being threatening can be unpredictable. They can quickly escalate into total chaos. It is possible that the person is drunk and/or on drugs, meaning they can't be reasoned with and would have a very high pain tolerance.  In those situations, you might have to break and arm, choke someone out, or do something else that makes them physically incapable of continuing. Also, the person who attacks might realize they are losing the fight and pull out a weapon.  Or one of their friend's see's that the fight is taking place, and jumps in.  Now you are outnumbered.  Furthermore, legally it gets even more complicated because you can't know for sure how a jury will see the situation.  If you injure or kill someone in self-defense, you could very well be tried for a crime and even if you know you are 100% in the right, the jury might not and could decide that you should face some legal consequences for the injury/death of the other person. 

I'd encourage anyone to avoid such situations if possible.  Unless you or someone else in immediate and serious danger, get out of there as soon as you can, because even if you are defending, and win the fight, you can still lose legally.  If you win legally, as stated above, it could become very traumatic.  I would guess that it is something you carry for the rest of your life.  

Edited 18 hours ago by KarateKen
typos

[sensei8]

Where talking about keeping a distance at all costs, if possible.

Last Friday, at around 1:35pm, here in North Las Vegas, at a gym, there was a mass shooting where a manager of the gym was killed, and several others were injured. The manager worked at that gym for 15 years.

Yesterday morning, channel 5 showed a clip. In this clip, it shows the shooter walking into the gym and he was carrying what looked like a military rifle. As the shooter is entering the gym, a male customer of the gym is walking by the shooter on the shooters left.

Mind you, the shooter paid no attention to that customer at all, shooter even told the two female employees standing behind the check-in counter that they better hid “because something’s about to happen bad”.

That male customer that walked by the shooter KEPT HIS DISTANCE from the shooter by leaving out the front door quickly, but before he exited the gym, he quickly looked over his left shoulder at the shooter. The shooter and the male customer were not that far away from each other as they passed by each other.

Shooter was shot by the police outside of the gym entrance; shooter died later at the hospital .

Edited 7 hours ago by sensei8

[crash]

On 5/19/2025 at 4:00 PM, Wastelander said:

your level of awareness is also going to come into play, because someone with a heightened sense of awareness could notice a knife in someone's pocket, or someone circling to get behind them, raising the threat level to high, while someone with a lower level of awareness might completely miss those things and mistakenly believe that they are in a low-risk situation.

 

2 hours ago, sensei8 said:

Where talking about keeping a distance at all costs, if possible.

I think these two quotes fit together very well. when teaching defense, especially for women, one of the first things to teach is situational awareness. being aware of your surroundings at all times. when driving through a parking lot to getting out and walking to the destination. awareness of who is around you at all times while out alone or in public in general. someone who looks clueless or occupied with no regards to their environment are far more likely to be picked out and targeted...teach confidence, awareness, and to walk tall and with purpose while also teaching the self defense aspect of techniques and fighting. just being aware can prevent someone from entering your space to the point of the original posts scenario and prevent having to face the "what-ifs" put forth thus far....