Threat Response Solutions (TRS)

[telsun]

He pulls his fist back to strike. Do you hit him first or wait for the punch? I know what I would do!

[Coudo]

guys, be realistic. The only way it would become a matter for the court is if he sued you, and if he sued you he wouldnt have any evidence unless you would have beaten him into hospital condition. Which you would'nt have since after you get an elbow strike into his head you would have had time to escape. Now if it leaves a bruise and he's got witnesses saying that you hit first, you can easily argue that you felt threatend and therefore had to find a way to escape, so you hit him, as you're taught.

[cymry]

Thank the higher power of whichever religion you partake in a couple guys understand what I mean Edited October 22, 2003 by cymry

[cymry]

Cybren, did you not read the other posts I've made? I've said a few times you go physical if amongst other things, you cannot verbally dissuade your attacker. If the witnesses see you trying to talk the guy out of it, I think they'd see that you did not want any. Then hitting the guy because he didn't stop would be prety reasonable.

[cymry]

Who said anything about beating the guy into hospital state? Do we as martial artists not believe in using as little force necessary to end a threat?

 

Use the first strike. Follow up with an aggresive verbal command e.g. BACK OFF. If this stops him you can leave quickly. If you have just told him again to stop this attack against yourself and he comes in again, I think everyone would be able to see you would have to continue your retaliation.

[JerryLove]

It's right at the top of the post. He is threatening you, verbally or physically it doesn't make much of a difference. The move is reactive. I say so right at the start, guys.

 

The problem is proving that you were right. "Self Defence" is what's referred to as an "affirmitive defence"... you carry a burden of proof.

I would rather face a jury than the inside of a coffin lid. Fights get nasty and you never know how far the punk looking for a fight is willing to go to "prove" himself.

 

Always a judgement and decision you need to make for yourself. I'm just discussing the reality.

He pulls his fist back to strike. Do you hit him first or wait for the punch? I know what I would do!

 

Once his swing starts, the fight is on. Worthy of note, however, is that you moving into his personal space in an aggressive manner may, itself, constitute an attack from which *he* can rightly attack you to defend his personal space (depends on state).

guys, be realistic. The only way it would become a matter for the court is if he sued you, and if he sued you he wouldnt have any evidence unless you would have beaten him into hospital condition.

 

Your state does not believe in witnesses? In civil court, it's a matter of "which stroy is more likely". In criminal court "I was defending myself" is an affirimitve defense and must be proven.

Which you would'nt have since after you get an elbow strike into his head you would have had time to escape.

 

And unless you escape to safety and then call the police, you have just fled the scene of a crime (which is, itself, a crime)

Now if it leaves a bruise and he's got witnesses saying that you hit first, you can easily argue that you felt threatend and therefore had to find a way to escape, so you hit him, as you're taught.

"I felt threatened" is not a viable deffence. The most friendly of states fall under "a reasonable person would have felt threatened", and the other end of the specturm includes "couldn't retreat and reacted with the minimum force possible".

Use the first strike. Follow up with an aggresive verbal command e.g. BACK OFF.

 

Stopping in the middle of a fight is a horribly dangerous idea.

[cymry]

Okay, I obviously need to give multiple outcomes.

 

1. The guy gets knocked out. Even so, hitting him once and getting a KO doesn't look so bad as several strikes that just bust his face open or something.

 

2. The guy is stunned and surprised enough to think twice about continuing his attack. (This would be the scenario where you use the aggresive command. The strike and the command combined would work better than each by themselves.)

 

3. The guy is stunned, but still continues his attack.

 

I think your actions would be pretty obvious for each.

[JerryLove]

4. The hit does nothing but make him come after you. You've paused to assess which of the above 3 situations is correct and have now lost initiative, against a pissed attacker, and at elbow range.

 

Possibly, he beats the **** out of you, and then presess chages and sues for willful battery (you did hit him first, after all.

[telsun]

5. You allow him to attack so that you can counter him. He strikes through your defence, your dazed his still hitting you but you don't really know what's happening anymore. Your on the floor looking through your hands at your crazed attacker.................You're in hospital staring blankley through the window wondering what the hell happened.

 

Who know's we're entitled to our opinions. There is no need to force yur opinions on others. Sometimes things should be left as:agree to disagree, eh guys?

[cymry]

Do I have to list every possible outcome for you guys?

 

Okay.

 

1. He gets KOd.

 

2. He is stunned but decides not to continue attacking.

 

3. He is stunned but continues attacking.

 

4. He is not stunned but decides not to continue attacking.

 

5. He is not stunned and continues attacking.

 

6. And on and on and on...

 

First you ask yourself is the guy still concious? Then, does t look like he will continue? If no, then it ends. If yes, then you continue your attack until the threat is neutralised.