Lijit Search

The Perpetual Need For Self Defense

February 17, 2010 | Author: Matthew | Filed under: Martial Arts,karate,mindset,self defense

**I’d like to send some initial credit to Kris Wilder at The Striking Post for exposing me to the video in this post. He and I share some similar ideas in our analysis as well, so credit to him and his commenters for a thoughtful discussion.**

As society continues to grow and mature, there is more and more emphasis on anti-violence. This, of course, is good in theory. In a perfect world there would be no violence thrust upon anyone and no need for anyone to know violence.

We don’t live in a perfect world though and the struggle to balance violence against non-violence is messy.

Interestingly, we are told (as proper citizens) to not take matters into our own hands. We are prompted not to fight back and instead seek out authority figures who are authorized to deal with bad situations. Furthermore, as technology and communication increases, it is expected that we be in quicker contact with the authorities (and thus have less reason not to rely on them).

In an effort to drill violent behavior out of the minds of children, schools have enacted severe rules and regulations both for students who fight and for students who defend themselves. Frequently if two youths get into a fight they are both punished equally, regardless of circumstance. Teachers are put into an equally awkward position as laying a finger on a student, even if trying to break up a scuffle, can potentially land them in hot water. Children and teachers alike are often resigned to become watchful bystanders.

Bystander freeze (similar to the bystander effect) extends to more than just schools – people everywhere understand the trouble with getting involved in a violent altercation.

When all of these factors come together, you end up with situations like in the following video. A young girl spending time in a Metro Bus Tunnel gets attacked. Meanwhile, three security guards who are literally five feet away do nothing to intervene, and neither do any bystanders.

On an individual basis, it was probably “smart” for people not to intervene because now they can’t be held liable. Imagine if you pulled the attacker off the other girl and hurt her in the process. Let’s assume you have martial arts experience and she has a semi-decent lawyer. You can bet you’d be in trouble for assaulting a minor, using excessive force, etc etc.

This is reality and it is a part of our culture. That’s why it has never been more critical to develop high levels of self defense skill. You need to rely on yourself for protection as bystander freeze is a strong phenomenon. Even security and authority personnel are not immune.

I also recommend people learn non-fistic forms of self defense in addition to percussive striking. From a legal standpoint, closed fisted strikes are often equated with willing violence and receive repercussion, but controls/locks/subtle-strikes are less obvious.

Of course you also need to make sure you have the ability to cause destruction quickly. As Shaka Zulu (the martial artist) said: “I will start with the mindset that I am going to kill you. Then, if I don’t have to, I will de-escalate”. I believe it’s necessary to have the ability to both maim and control, and have it be a naturally integrated form of self expression.

It is possible to look passive and yet be devastating.

Everybody has to decide for themselves what they are willing to risk to defend themselves, their loved ones, and complete strangers. But it’s wise to understand the possible ramifications of relying solely on others for that protection.

Share This (Good Karma Guaranteed):

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 and is filed under Martial Arts, karate, mindset, self defense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Nhan-Esteban Khuong, L.Ac.

@ Nyffeler_sensei

I'm sure "commercialized violence such as 'wrestling' and 'video games'" play a role, but not as much as one might think. Ultimately, a healthy body, mind, and spirit, will have a strong "immune system", so to speak, to negative influences.

This is really the responsibility of parents and caretakers.

Violence in sport and recreation is a part of the human condition. History has shown us that it has always been around in some form or another.

I feel that the radicals and activists that target "things" are just looking for a scapegoat (consciously or not) and are just side stepping the real issue which is human consciousness, a far more difficult concept to approach because it requires working on one's self instead of others.

It's much easier to point fingers.
Nyffeler_sensei

Yes, I agree. Violence is ubiquitous.

One of my 'pet' concerns (sociologically) is the seeming trend towards densensitzation to an increasingly higher general level of violence. For example in the cinema, what was extreme 20 years ago is now commonplace. The young and inexperienced often form a great deal of their "reality" on the basis of the big screen (or streaming video on their small screens).

Statistics, should one choose to believe them point in general terms to a parallel "rise" in socio and pyscho pathic behaviour. Now, granted there may be a host of other influences contributing to this, but (I believe) a correlation exists.

In terms of an ascendence of consciousness, does an individual not have to become aware of a new paradigm before being able to understand and adopt it? Often difficult to do whilst being bombarded with images, and peer approved negative models. And IMHO, the majority of that bombardment is created for commercial reasons.
TheMartialArtsReporter

Matt,
Wow! Your post along with video certainly hit a lot of nerves, again.
Not everything turns out to be what it originally looked like, as Chris
wrote in.
Appropriate self-defense skills are always an advantage, I guess we all
agree on that.
And all truly concerned bystanders would change from that role to at least that of de-escalators.
Many times a lot of these nasty incidents/attacks started way before "we"
enter the scene.
Nevertheless, it can be a tough decision to take the right action, because
we simply don't have all the information.
Great post, Matt.
Chris | Martial Development

Did you see the follow-up? The alleged victim is also an alleged aggressor.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...
John W. Zimmer

Hi Matt,

A couple of things here. You do make a good point about people being indoctrinated to not respond and truthfully most people might not do too much good in many situations but of course in this one - all it would have taken was for the larger people to start yelling and pulling the kids away from the girl. A little risk but it would have been the right thing to do.

True it is a personal decision but without taking about how (closed vs open fist), people in all walks of life should intervene to the extent they feel comfortable with - even if it is yelling and getting other people involved.

I am conflicted but assuming my family is not at risk and the person seems to be worth saving - then yes I would always get involved as I would hope others might come to the aid of my family members.

Now my prejudice - after owning a karate school near an outlaw biker bar for years - I don't like bikers much. I used to have to fight them every month - the result was always the same but it was annoying. To this day I figure if they are fighting their own - I don't care much...

Karate is excellent for self defense assuming you do want to intervene. I did a post that had three stories... the first of which was a girl that was accosted in a transit station and restaurant here: http://myselfdefenseblog.com/http:/myselfdefens... you might be interested... she was able to get away but that is not the norm when a bunch of thugs attack a girl (sadly).
Nyffeler_sensei

Mr. Khuong makes a very succinct and apt point. Thank you sir. Violence is almost always the response to failed social practises. In this vein, martial arts can serve to "connect" individuals to their larger social groups.

Mr. Khuong, what role would you feel that commercialized violence such as "wrestling" and "video games" play in this desensitization?
Rodney J Owen

First of all I completely agree with Nyffeler Sensei. Well put!

Second, this concept of not taking things into our own hands, and letting "the authorities" handle it is total BS and ranks right up there with gun control and State worship. Our first responsibility, as citizens and humans, is to ourselves and those around us, not blind obedience to the State. Agreed, this may bring trouble, but some principles are worth the risks.

I do hate to get political, but I'm afraid that is the essence of this issue. We have a responsibility to protect the weak, and to prevent war. We also have the right to self defense, and to not be subjugated; and we should insist on maintaining those rights.
Nhan-Esteban Khuong, L.Ac.

Interesting post. There's nothing quite as sobering as the truth.

Self defense is an absolutely essential skill but that's no necessarily the issue here as the same result could have occurred if the two were trained fighters. There will always be a disparity among people with regards to skill, aggression, strength, etc.

Fighting is natural and this example illustrates a natural occurrence in human behavior, especially among young people. There are, however, two points that show a natural behavior with horribly unnatural mutations.

The first is the offending girl continuing her attack with potentially deadly force after the the downed girl is obviously helpless and defeated.

The second and more talked about point is the complete lack of intervention from onlookers and, especially, the security guards after the downed girl is repeatedly stomped on.

Both of these points illustrate a very sad state of affairs in human consciousness resulting in a severe disconnect from nature and truly sickening behavior.

Self defense is certainly an important element in the solution to this, but the real issue is removing institutionalized interference with natural laws. In other words, blanket social and political influences are making individuals dumb by replacing natural instincts with policies.

The real answer to this problem is in the promotion of people oriented practices, like Martial Arts, that increase consciousness and connection with self and others and thus a healthier community and social dynamic.
Matt__A

Nhan - thanks a lot for your visit. I agree that martial arts, when taught correctly, can have an almost counter-intuitively positive effect on people toward violence avoidance.

I think self defense training would have been helpful for the girls...but definitely for the guards!! If they were skillful in non-destructive control and combat tactics that would have had the confidence and skill to to prevent at least the tail end of that beating.
Nyffeler_sensei

This video (and the responses) bring up some very, very good points.

Firstly, shame, shame. All this "rationalization" about legality and fear of being held liable is as equally shameful, as the conduct of lawyers who perpetuate this kind of society. If one is a true martial artist, one must be prepared to ACT! Not simply to mill about with the other sheep and bleat loudly!
Where and who started it is immaterial. Blows were thrown, "stuff" happens, but when the girl is on the ground getting her head stomped, it is no longer a fight, it is a beating, and anyone, including those hollow-headed "security" guards who could stand there and watch that is not worth the price of a cup of coffee.
Any one of my green belts could have separated the head-stomper from her inert victim (let alone 3 adult guards). Shame, Shame. The kanji Bu-Shi-Do has a secondary meaning of stopping war. We are charged with safeguarding the weak and the victimized.
At that point simply shoving her back would have prevented a number of kicks to her victims head, and use of "command tone" warnings could have stoppedit right their. And if the attacker then continues or escalates, it could be considered an attack upon the intervener, and if someone attacks me when I am helping their victim, it will definitely end badly for THEM. Lawyers be dammed.

We get the kind of society we deserve, and if you are not willing to step up with a strong palm heel to knock an agreesor back a few feet to save a victim from potentially severe cranial trauma/brain injury, then scurry back to your burrows and lock-up, because the adjectives "brave" "strong" and "free" no longer apply to your homeland.

Not to inflame but simply to remind us all about our responsibility to maintain the freedoms and rights paid for by the blood of patriots.
Matt__A

Thanks a lot for your input Nyffeler Sensei. Even if the security guards just stood in between the attacker and the victim that would have been enough, no need to even lay a hand on the attacker unless she proceeds to attack the guards. And like you said, "command tones" from all three would very likely have dissuaded her to continue.
Hibbit

I agree with jackthestripper, would,ve been easy to restrain without too much trouble,but one never knows what weapons are hidden!
Matt__A

Very true hibbit, weapons always need to be considered.
Jackthestripper

How hard could it possibly have been for the three guards to just separate them? I find that a little confusing.

"... it’s wise to understand the possible ramifications of relying solely on others for that protection."

Well put.
Eric

I read a little about this on another blog. I think the problem is that the "guards" are told to only observe and report and not to get involved physically. I think most people will now agree that this turned into a very poor policy. They also said they were going to change this policy. It mentions this in "The Striking Post" article he mentions in the beginning, but that isn't where I originally saw it.

I do think that's a good moral of the story though. Like the title says, there is a "perpetual need for self defense".
simon_j_parker

This is an interesting video. This is not a simple attack, it is a fight. There is obvious hostility between the two, and after the first jumps the second, sending her on to the road, she is then beaten back. The second person doesn't seem to want to back off at this point but chases her opponents. So it is very hard to see what you would do. Having said all that, the three "guards" (if that's what they are) are definitely showing a "don't want to know" attitude. I can't help but think that this started long before the video we see.
Matt__A

Perhaps Simon! Unfortunately we don't know if there was a ruckus leading up to this. If there was, the guards could have put on a no-nonsense front and let the girls know that no funny business would be tolerated. Things could have been stopped right then.
Jason King

That poor girl went to those three for protection. WTF! I cannot comprehend how people can allow something like that to happen right in front of them.

However it is a good example (whilst unfortunate) of how quick, aggressive and devastating an attack can be. And in this day and age where attacks are even more brutal and often heavily stacked in the attackers favour (either in numbers, weapons, size or at least the advantage of surprise and/or initiative) it is crucial to approach self defense with this sort of scenario in mind.
Matt__A

Thanks for your input Jason. Very appreciated. It does seem like she made every effort to get their attention and avoid the attacker.
Eric

I think you also have to keep in mind that when something like this happens, from the perspective of a bystander, it's difficult to tell who is the one attacking who: who started it. So I think it is important to realize that a bystander would be wise not to simply jump in and give one of them a lock. It is best, if possible, to neutralize the situation so it can then be handled. Unless of course it is obvious who is the attacker and who is the one who needs defending. For this situation, it might not have been too apparent who needed help until she was on the ground getting kicked in the head.

I agree that it's important to know how to defend yourself, but still, it is hard to say what the bystanders should have done exactly... because of excessive force issues and the like.
jessecrouch

I have to agree. Other thing is - 'who started it' as we see it isn't about who 'deserved' it either. No outsider can know the conflict by just looking at the two people. If you're of the belief that no person should ever harm another physically then neutralizing would be an option. To me, I would need to know much more about the situation to make a decision I could live with.

But our answers are a perfect reason why it is up to the individual to learn how to defend him/herself. You cannot rely on the crowd.
Matt__A

Very valid point Eric! These things do happen quicly and you don't just want to go barreling in swinging.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Feed

The Perpetual Need For Self Defense

Blogroll

Martial Arts Links