4 posts / 0 new
Last post
Andrew Sheldon-...
Andrew Sheldon-Thomson's picture
Fake Surrenders

Scanning youtube today I came accross two videos in quick succession where the attacker fake surrendered when the defender got the upper hand, then just re-attacked when the defender let up.

In this video the kid who was defending himself ended up getting stiches in his ear because the attacker bit him when he re-attacked.

Fully Grown Man Attacks 16-Year-Old Multiple Junior World Champion in BJJ - Ends Up Flying - YouTube

In this one at the 18 second mark the attacker backs up then pulls a gun and re-attacks when the defender lets up

GRAPHIC: Video allegedly shows 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shooting 3 people, 2 fatally in Kenosha - YouTube

Perhaps I noticed it because I saw these videos by chance one after the other.   Is this a common tactic?

Should we actually let up on an attacker if they appear to give up or just keep going to completely eliminate the threat?

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Sheldon-Thomson wrote:
Scanning youtube today I came across two videos in quick succession where the attacker fake surrendered when the defender got the upper hand, then just re-attacked when the defender let up … Should we actually let up on an attacker if they appear to give up or just keep going to completely eliminate the threat?

I think this comes down to the difference between consensual and non-consensual violence (self-defence). In consensual violence, we win when the opponent taps / throws in the towel. So, we stop as the job is done. In non-consensual violence, the criminal will lie (shocker!) and a “you win!” can be a tactical attempt to regroup, draw a weapon, etc. However, that does not mean we should automatically keep on going.

The goal of non-consensual violence / self-defence – from our perspective as opposed to the criminal’s – is to avoid harm (physically, legally, etc). Therefore, we should be looking to escape the first chance we get. If the criminal is overwhelmed (physical ability to give chase diminished, possibly their desire to give chase too), then that’s a good time to start escaping and shouting for help (removing motivation to chase due to increased risk of criminal behaviour being discovered, etc).

Backing off and staying put when the criminal “strategically quits” is a bad idea. Likewise, not taking the opportunity to escape and continuing to inflict damage is a bad idea too. The criminal may rally, there may be third parties you were not immediately aware of, you could look like the guilty party to witnesses (“the other guy was begging them to stop, but he just kept hitting him!”), etc.

It’s another example of why we can’t treat consensual and non-consensual violence as being one and the same. In consensual violence the aim is to win the fight and that happens when the opponent quits (or we win in any of the other agreed ways). In non-consensual violence, the aim is not to “win the fight” but avoid harm. In that context, we know them criminal may lie, and we should seek to escape when appropriate.

All the best,

Iain

sarflondonboydo...
sarflondonboydonewell's picture

It’s a very good question but sometimes things are out of ones control ( or are they?) as there are a number of human variables; the mental and the physical. Re the mental; your perception as against the bystander(s) (if there are any) perception. Hence the difficulty regarding self-defence cases. Some are clear cut, others  not so.

One’s decision making process is split second taking the information in whilst in a stressful /agitate state, then executing it in milliseconds. The physical state is of chemical cocktail in the main adrenaline; one action is which to  enlarging the pupil in the eye; so one might be perceiving a threat greater than it is; another of which is the adrenal ‘rush’ ; in the fight mode its pushing/driving one forward. I have heard this describe in certain situations as a ‘momentary loss of control’ when a person has been beaten to a pulp in a milli second although that was not the intended aim of the person. In short they could not  stop if they wanted to.  So although one may have a philosophical approach to dealing with raw violence that it is have control and not exact what some would perceive as revenge.

There was a very interesting case in 2009 that looked at that dilemma. In short a homeowner, returned home to find his family tied up by a gang of masked men who threatened them at knifepoint. When the intruders fled, the home owner and his brother gave chased and caught one of the men and beat him with a baseball bat, leaving the man with permanent brain injury. Both were convicted of Grievous Bodily Harm and went to jail but from memory i think they were later freed on appeal The judge stated that the attack was a mixture of ‘law into one own hands’ and 'revenge' . However the defence argued that the persons had acted in the heat of the moment under extreme stress. Maybe sometimes one is not in control of events; events are in control of you.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Great points!

sarflondonboydonewell wrote:
One’s decision making process is split second taking the information in whilst in a stressful /agitate state, then executing it in milliseconds.

Decision making when in high stress situations, and when flooded with the “chemical cocktail” our biology provides to help us deal with those situations, is often off the table.

One can imagine a group of cavemen being charged by a mammoth. The ones that acted on “instinct” where far more likely to survive than those who tried to think / decide what to do. Therefore, we are descended from those who acted, as opposed to those who thought. Our biology, quite righty, encourages us to act and not think.

When we have knowledge of this, we realise that the key is ensure we develop the right instincts (thoroughly internalised habits) so we don’t have to think to do the right thing. Therefore, in training, we should encourage escape at the appropriate time. When that has been done repeatedly in training, we are far more likely to follow that habit in reality. It’s another key difference between consensual and non-consensual violence. In broad terms, in consensual violence we fight to win the fight; whereas in non-consensual violence we fight to escape. We need to train specifically for specific goals.

sarflondonboydonewell wrote:
… leaving the man with permanent brain injury. Both were convicted of Grievous Bodily Harm and went to jail but from memory i think they were later freed on appeal …

I remember that case. The bother had his sentence reduced, but he was not freed. There’s more info here for those interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munir_Hussain_case

All the best,

Iain