Contradictory Self Defense Advice

while i understand the advice and principle of handing over possessions in order of self preservation i do not beleive that this can be a default position to be taken in every mugging type situation, my reasoning being as follows.

a lot of so called muggings are carried out by groups of youths / gangs and in many of these cases the illegal acquisition (read theft) is not so much about obtaining money or property for it s actual value or even necessarily because the offender wants the items but is often more about the offender / offenders either  carrying out the act in order to prove to the gang that they are worthy of membership (initiation rite) or to garner a reputation. generally in such incidents the offender will gain more kudos by inflicting violence than obtaining cash or property. therefore in such cases you often find that the offender acts violently against the victim whether they hand over cash or property as demanded and the more violence used the more kudos the offenders gains and is seen as a worthy member of the gang.

so if we are talking a simple snatch type theft where the offender runs past the victim and steals a bag or phone etc then my advice would be to let them have it and then report it to the police however if one is being threatened with violence by someone demanding cash or property my advice would be to act as early as possible

just my opinon though

"What should I do if....?"

To quote Marc MacYoung: "It depends..."

I teach that we should fight to protect our life/health, not our stuff. (In my area, that's spelled out in the applicable statutes.) That said, there can be a fine line separating one from the other. Training responses for a variety of threat levels allows us to get used to making this kind of decison. This goes for all kinds of self-defense scenarios. To fight/not to fight is a tricky, situation-dependent decision, and it's hard to give specific advice outside the specific situation.

Make yourself safe, then call the police. That's about as specific as I get.

Hi All,

I think no one has the right to catagorically state whether you should fight or not. You can advise as to the consequenses for the decisions they make because it is up to them, it's their stuff/health. If you want to fight over a handbag then thats your choice. As corporal jones said, there could be many reasons for the 'crime' so it may not be that black and white.

I'm not someone with expensive phones, jewellery or carry large amount of cash. If my wallet got taken i would lose a bank card (which is very easy to cancell) and my drivers lisence, which i keep for ID, but even that isn't really needed. Is it worth risking getting hurt over that? No, but then that is part of my personal protection. Of course there are limits, if i found someone trying to steal my motorbike i wouldn't just hand over the keys.

To get back to original thread, i don't agree with guys advice, especially the age group he was teaching.

I recall reading an article or interview (can’t remember which) with Jamie O’Keefe where he said something along the lines of the key question to ask is “How will this effect my life and the lives of those I care about?” Someone knocking into you, spilling a drink over you, taking some cash, etc all won’t have any real effect in the long run … so not worth getting physical over and running all the risks that come with that. If they are intent on harming you in some way then that’s an entirely different matter of course.

lcpljones_dontpanic wrote:

so if we are talking a simple snatch type theft where the offender runs past the victim and steals a bag or phone etc then my advice would be to let them have it and then report it to the police however if one is being threatened with violence by someone demanding cash or property my advice would be to act as early as possible

It’s an important point I feel and we should not have the view that if we hand over whatever is being asked for that it will guarantee no violence. As always we need to be ready to go and if we believe violence is imminent then we should tactically intervene (pre-empt) and try to escape. The handing over of items will take place during the dialogue stages and if we can deescalate by doing so then we should. However, each situation needs to be judged for itself and I don’t think there is a way to state “yes / no” ahead of time other than in the broad terms in which we have been talking.

All the best,

Iain

There is no definate 'right' answer.

The response is determined by the situation. Time, light, location, witnesses, numbers, your clothes, positioning, mental recovery time, your skill, your energy levels etc... they are all factors (and the list is much much longer).  There are some times when a little resistance will cause the other person to run because they cannot hang around, other times when a little resistance will get you killed.  It is far more useful to spend time teaching people how to avoid being targeted than teaching people how to fight back, or to offer them choices or courses of action that they may not be emotionally equipped to act on.

My default teaching position is that when faced with weapons you should comply with instructions (unless you feel they make you more vulnerable), because the risk of a cut/stab etc is not worth the property you have to hand over.  Only fight back if the weapon is already in use or you have a gut feeling it is about to be used.   Compliance can often bring later (and we could be talking seconds) opportunities to fight or run - if that seems safer.  I spend more time coaching and lecturing teenagers than any other age bracket, and I am comfortable that this is the best advice for a 'default' position.  Avoidance, de-escalation and compliance before conflict.

With regard to your sensei's sensei.  It can be distressing when you see people passing on advice that you disagree with - especially when it may compromise their safety.  Sadly many martial artists do not distinguish between their art and self defence, and to be a highly respected and skilled practitioner in the former does not automatically confer knowledge with regard to the latter.

Hey all!

I find this a very interesting question. I don't have my own studio yet, but I'm looking to found one in a year or two. Self-defense is pretty important to me, and I think a lot about what I will tell my students when I have them.

If I were in a self-defense situation, I would assess the situation and see if chances are good for me to get the upper hand in a physical situation. Because I believe some people should fight back. We can't allow muggers' jobs to become "easy". Also, as mentioned before, it depends what I stand to lose if I comply. My wallet, sure, who cares. My laptop, with all my work, my thesis, my programs, etc? Now I would be more likely to fight. My girlfriend or future kids? Over my dead body (obviously...)!

On the other hand, I will never tell my students that, especially beginners. Because it is not safe. I *might* be able to assess a situation and defend myself, but someone who's had one clinic on self-defense is unlikely to come unscathed with someone who mugs people regularly. And they are also unlikely to be able to assess a situation correctly. At some point, they will come to the realization that I might be wrong and they could defend themselves in some situations. But it's better to have it ingrained in them that it's better to comply. That way when they decide to break that rule, you know things were bad enough that it was the best thing to do.

(Although I would tell them cooperating is the best thing to do, so long as you're not taken to a secondary location... That one is an immediate rule-breaker!)

I liked the Marc McYoung comment.

I think it comes down to risk and reward.  I am not a big strapping guy, but I AM a guy.  So my ASSUMPTION therefore is that if someone  approaches me to snatch my European Man Bag (Sorry, Brits, see "The Hangover"), then they will either be armed, verbally insinuate that they are armed, or there will be two or more of them.  (Most men not simply approahcing other men and saying "hand me your wallet, bro!").  So, the threat is 'phyiscal harm', and while 'all' physical conflict can produce that outcome, I would argue that some harms are greater than others.  And likewise, some risks are greater than others, and some rewards are greater than others.

What I mean is, if I have eight dollars in my wallet and credit cards that are cancelable, the way I usually do,  I would probably just hand over my wallet in the face of imminent harm.  Like the comment above said, make yourself safe, then let the police handle it, which means probably nothing will likely happen for petty theft,  but there you have it.  (Not faulting the police, they simply have bigger issues).

A 'bigger' issue for me that gives me pause with that advcie is the idea that my wallet has my ID in it, and my ID says who I am and where I live.  I am a lot less comfortable with some crack thug having that info than I am with them getting my Visa to use for a half hour until I can get it shut off.  But even so, I think, especially if we are talking about the real liklihoood of severe harm being imminent,  I would probably cooperate.  "Cooperate" here being the advice that Snaford Strong advoctaes in his book:  'throw your wallet at their feet and run'.   If they want your wallet, they're not likely to pursue you.  If they want more than that, then you'll know. 

Personally, I draw the line at, and tell students to draw the line at,  anyone who wants to move me, restrain me, or makes a very evident clarification of which orifices they want to have sex with after i am dead.  i.e. someone who SAYS they are going to hurt you constitutes a fairly evident threat and (IMO) you are naive not to take it at face value.  But even that idea is potentially 'not always applicable'.  I know someone who, with three female college co-eds, was kidnapped at gunpoint while in South Africa. The kidnappers drove them 30 miles outside of Johannesberg to a cemetery, tied them with duct tape-- and left them.  This guy was a 6'-8", probably 280# man, but accompanied by three 20-ish college students.  He told me he drew the line at rape, i.e. if the assailants had made implication that they were going to rape the girls then he "would have tried something" ('what' exactly he didn't know, other than 'to resist').  Others might have resisted earlier, and might have died or been shot as a result.  But, I think people can probably agree on two things:  1)  he was in definitively more danger a) after he let himself be removed from a major urban area to a remote rural one, and b) he was basically incapapable of resisting after he was restrained.  But he lived.  So, the second point is, 2) I think you can only ever judge such things for yourself, in the moment.

Here's the irony.  This person was a relative, and he came to me afterwards for "self-defense advice.", being that he was returning for work to South Africa.  My advice was that he had been lucky, and to buy a gun that he ws both willing and capable of using.  That would literally give him the most protection for the least amount of work.  (Like many, he really approached  me at least partly wanting to know if there was an easy 'move' that might have helped him.)

His reply to my advcie about getting and being willing to use a weapon was twofold.   One, he let me know that in SA, they had heard tell of people who in basic robberies were shot--  simply for being armed, as an example to others.  And two, he questioned whether he could really ever pull the trigger on someone.  So, regardless of what you think of that policy, this guy at least knew his own limitations.  

However, all of that is related, but kind of OT, bc the scenario Tau asked about was more of a simple snatch-and-run type purse-snatching.  And in that capacity, if some 15 year old kid rolls by on a skateborad and tries to grab my Man Bag, I will probably resist.  So in that capacity I see te original advice as 'good advice'-- depending on the level of threat.

So, to quote another MA paragon, Tony Blauer, "the situation will dictate".

This is my first post outside of an introduction, so remember that, and be gentle. 

Tau: "He very clearly stated that we have a legal and moral right to not be victims, not have our property taken and to fight back"

See, I come at this quote from a very different angle than everyone else seems to be.  I don't see this as telling people they are obligated to fight over a wallet.  I see this quote as saying it's okay to resist.  That you aren't a bad person for having to resort to violence and legally you are entitled to resist in these kinds of situtations.  Lets face it, the mordern world has place a very low value on physical abilities that don't happen to apply to a playing field.  There is a general sense that violence is always terrible.  I don't mean to say it's a good thing, only that there are times when a physical and violent responce is warranted and justified.  People are conditioned from a very early age that fighting back is wrong and that you will be punished if you do.  Think of all those zero tolerance policies in schools now.  How often do they restrain a bully or an attacker?  What message does it send to the good kid being  threatened and taking the punch?

  I think back to Ian's last pod cast about discipline and the wrong kind not helping to bring out the ability to say "no", and all the other colorful ways you can put it, when the time is right.  Re-enforcing this message during a self defense course wouldn't be a bad thing to me.  When done right.  There is a mental hurdle that has to be cleared in order to have impliment physical skills when they are called for.  You can read the situation correctly, atempting to de-escalate and look for openings to flee if that doesn't work.  But, when those options are not working and it's time to act, having the assurance that you are in the right to do so can cut out hesitation.  I'd have to dig around for an exact quote from Col. Grossman's On Combat, but he spends a lot of time talking about the mental preparedness to act and clearing those barriers first. 

  If the context were provided for the quote, it could totally change the meaning of those words.  If he's saying you are okay to fight back if that is the option you have been left with, very well.  If it's about encouraging people to let fly with fists and feet whenever they are confronted, regardless of the context of the situation, then it's a no go. 

  I've had a highschool student of mine come to me after class asking how he should handle another kid bad mouthing him and trying to provoke a fight.  He seemed very much to be looking for the okay to get into a fight over what Rory Mill, I believe, calls "the monkey dance".  Teenaged bragging and jocking for dominance.  I asked him a few simple questions.  Had the boy physically confronted him, and if so did he have friends handy, in the attempt to start the fight?  Had he been directly threatened with harm and did they guy have a history of starting trouble with others?  Was any of what the guy saying going to matter in six months or a year?  The answers on 2 of those three came back no so my advice was not to worry about it.

MykeB wrote:

 Re-enforcing this message during a self defense course wouldn't be a bad thing to me.  When done right.  There is a mental hurdle that has to be cleared in order to have impliment physical skills when they are called for.  You can read the situation correctly, atempting to de-escalate and look for openings to flee if that doesn't work.  But, when those options are not working and it's time to act, having the assurance that you are in the right to do so can cut out hesitation.  I'd have to dig around for an exact quote from Col. Grossman's On Combat, but he spends a lot of time talking about the mental preparedness to act and clearing those barriers first. 

Precisely because of this I talk through how supportive English law is of self defence, chapter and verse, when running courses or giving lectures, right at the start of the presentation.  It is important for people to know they can act.  I also spend almost as much time talking about all the perceptual/physiological changes stress and adrenaline bring, for the same reason.

Good points, Myke!

Neil Cook wrote:

If my wallet got taken i would lose a bank card (which is very easy to cancell) and my drivers lisence, which i keep for ID, but even that isn't really needed. Is it worth risking getting hurt over that? No, but then that is part of my personal protection. Of course there are limits, if i found someone trying to steal my motorbike i wouldn't just hand over the keys.

Neil, are you a UK resident? If so your name and address will be on your driver's licence. I wouldn't want a mugger to know where I live. Where do you make the distinction between your wallet and your motorbike? Is it simply the monetary value of each?

(I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that nothing's so black and white, especially under the influence of adrenaline).

Lee Richardson wrote:

Neil Cook wrote:

If my wallet got taken i would lose a bank card (which is very easy to cancell) and my drivers lisence, which i keep for ID, but even that isn't really needed. Is it worth risking getting hurt over that? No, but then that is part of my personal protection. Of course there are limits, if i found someone trying to steal my motorbike i wouldn't just hand over the keys.

Neil, are you a UK resident? If so your name and address will be on your driver's licence. I wouldn't want a mugger to know where I live.

This is a good point and one that I have never thought about. I checked all my cards in my wallet to see if this aplies to me as well but the residential adress does not come up on any of my cards or drivers license (I am from Norway). But if this is the case in the UK (and/or other contries) one form to assure our (future) safety would could be as simple as removing the drivers license from your wallet? After all I think that it is the cash or credit cards the "typical" mugger wants (there is of course not something like a "typical" mugger but you know what I mean), so I doubt he gets dissapointed if the drivers license is missing when you hand over your wallet.

Hi Lee,

(can't remember how to quote) Yes my lisence does have my address, i carry it for ID due to often getting mistaken for a teenager. My point is that it's my choice to carry it or not, most people don't even consider these things untill the police ask about the contents of the bag/wallet stolen. Consequences are that if that happens i may have to change the locks, still not a big expense compared to a potential kicking.  I am a biker, it's in my blood, that's why i wouldn't want anyone taking it.

Again this goes back to what has been said before, we are all different so 'the line' may move from person to person depending on situation.

Neil

Neil Cook wrote:

Hi Lee,

(can't remember how to quote) Yes my lisence does have my address, i carry it for ID due to often getting mistaken for a teenager. My point is that it's my choice to carry it or not, most people don't even consider these things untill the police ask about the contents of the bag/wallet stolen. 

Hi Neil, I agree that handing over ID with your address can be worrying.  

Personally I don't carry my drivers licence or any ID with my address, but I do teach in lectures how to make an effective fake wallet for travel purposes for free with in date cards etc.  I also try to get across the message that there's no point in having a fake wallet if you keep accessing your real wallet in public! 

Neil Cook wrote:

Hi Lee,

(can't remember how to quote) Yes my lisence does have my address, i carry it for ID due to often getting mistaken for a teenager. My point is that it's my choice to carry it or not, most people don't even consider these things untill the police ask about the contents of the bag/wallet stolen. Consequences are that if that happens i may have to change the locks, still not a big expense compared to a potential kicking.  I am a biker, it's in my blood, that's why i wouldn't want anyone taking it.

Again this goes back to what has been said before, we are all different so 'the line' may move from person to person depending on situation.

Neil

Sigh, if only I got mistaken for a teenager!

I have to carry 'ID' for and at  work, to get me into certain establishments and to do my job with, I only carry it when I have to, it's  valuble enough for me to probably have to make great efforts to stop it being stolen. Anything else I carry isn't worth enough for me to risk get injured for but if I'm eating chocolate no one had better try to take it, I will growl once then attack anyone who tries to pinch it!! Hell has no fury etc etc.

I was thinking about this. OK, identity theft is a problem, but surely opportunistic muggers (which is what I'm talking about, I concede risks change your responce) are out for a quick theft of your wallet, not complex crimes using your ID? As I think about it, I don't think that anything in the my wallet has my address on it. I'll check and think about the implications to this. But then, why would your muggers target YOUR house as opposed to any other random house? Just because I have a driving licence, that doesn't mean I have a 52" TV!

This week my students have been taught to defend against a downward knife stab using a figure 4 armlock. The initial defence involved stopping the stab witha cupped palm. Again, we're talking about 15 and 16 year olds beings of both sexes being taught this.

Tau wrote:

I was thinking about this. OK, identity theft is a problem, but surely opportunistic muggers (which is what I'm talking about, I concede risks change your responce) are out for a quick theft of your wallet, not complex crimes using your ID? But then, why would your muggers target YOUR house as opposed to any other random house? Just because I have a driving licence, that doesn't mean I have a 52" TV!

I'm not concerned about identity theft Tau. I'm worried that, should I be mugged, my wallet (and probably house keys, since I'm likely to be carrying those too) would be taken and that my assailant would not only know where I lived, but that I was out of the house and incapacitated too. An opportunistic mugger might not be able to resist. House breakers aren't necessarily looking for a big score to retire on. They'll break into a likely property and clean it out.

Hi Tau,

i think i've taken the original thread off topic, sorry about that.  I can't comment on the knife defence technique as i can't visualise the move but it would appear that you don't agree with it. I can understand your frustration with how some instructors percieve self defence, perhaps this is an opportunity to do some self defence workshops yourself. Dispell some myths.

Neil

Neil, I don't think the thread did go topic, just honed in on one aspect of my original post.

My frustration is that this is being taught by someone that I actually do have a lot of respect for... but what is actually being taught I can't agree with and have concerns about what is being taught to this specific age group. Do I feel that I could do it better? Absolutely I do. If I were the school looking for the best person to do this and I relied on reputation and available information, who would I choose? The chap that they've chosen!

Neil, your last bit of advice is sound and I've been think about this. I intend running a self defence day some time this year much like the one that I describe. Whereas in many ways I'm much more confidant in the validity of what I teach than that that I'm describing, I'm also under no illusion that there are some glaring holes in my knowledge that I need to address, specifically in "soft skills." I'm hoping that the seminar with Jamie Clubb next weekend will be a big help.

Tau wrote:

I was thinking about this. OK, identity theft is a problem, but surely opportunistic muggers (which is what I'm talking about, I concede risks change your responce) are out for a quick theft of your wallet, not complex crimes using your ID? As I think about it, I don't think that anything in the my wallet has my address on it. I'll check and think about the implications to this. But then, why would your muggers target YOUR house as opposed to any other random house? Just because I have a driving licence, that doesn't mean I have a 52" TV!

 

This week my students have been taught to defend against a downward knife stab using a figure 4 armlock. The initial defence involved stopping the stab witha cupped palm. Again, we're talking about 15 and 16 year olds beings of both sexes being taught this.

I wasn't thinking about identity thief nor having my house broken into when I mentioned my 'ID', more that it could be used to commit further crimes and damage etc. We also have car passes which cause problems if lost or are in a car that are stolen.

We do a similar fig four defence, not with a cupped hand though, it's a good take down too. 

Tez wrote:

We do a similar fig four defence, not with a cupped hand though, it's a good take down too.

I'm not knocking the figure-4 armlock. Indeed it's our "number 3" and a versatile technique. I show two unusual variations of it on my YouTube channel and Iain shows it's application in Heian Nidan / Pinan Shodan.. I'm just not happy with the method of entry, for the purpose, in view of the target audience.

Tau wrote:

I'm not knocking the figure-4 armlock. Indeed it's our "number 3" and a versatile technique.

Just out of curiosity Tau what are your numbers 1 and 2 and how do you rate them? It is practicality, personal preference, or some other metric?

My primary style is Aiki-Jujitsu. Following an Aikido system we have ten set defences and eight attack forms. This is the core of the style with all clubs putting their own layers on top of this.

Number 1 is essentially o soto gari

Number 2 is descended from irimi nage

How do I rate them? Practiced as an art form they're very valuable; there's lots of principles contained within them. Practiced for SD, they require huge adaptation. Our Soke openly admits that they're exercises toward learning the rest of the art. I sound critical but I'm not, I love it. I just recognise the deficits, hence cross training.

Tau wrote:

My frustration is that this is being taught by someone that I actually do have a lot of respect for... but what is actually being taught I can't agree with and have concerns about what is being taught to this specific age group. Do I feel that I could do it better? Absolutely I do. If I were the school looking for the best person to do this and I relied on reputation and available information, who would I choose? The chap that they've chosen!

Hi Tau.

I sympathise.  It was precisely this sort of thing that led to me walking away from my original karate association in 2001 and going independant.  On the negative side it separated me from a lot of really nice people (although I did get aksed back from time to time to teach bunkai seminars), on the positive side the freedom to teach what I wanted how I wanted led to me making a lot more progress with my own training.  

Have you raised your concerns with this instructor privately yet?  Or is that too embarrassing?  

J

I trained with this chap for a short time back in 2002 / 2003. He was my Judo Sensei's Sensei. I've had no contact with him since. I only actually trained with him a handful of times, plus the seminar that I've described.