Tweet
Back when law enforcement started calling subject control “defensive tactics”, it was assumed that cops would only use force if someone attempted to hurt them. Somehow, over time, it evolved into arrest and control situations where the officer actually had to make the initial contact. Of course, thats what the job calls for and therein lies the problem. With the total lack of respect for authority, as well as the so-called citizens “rights,” comes this common reaction known as “resisting arrest.”
For something to be defensive, it would seem natural that someone was an aggressor and someone was a victim. In the purest sense, that is still true. Unfortunately there has been such an meteoric rise of reality fighting schools that the line between defense and offense has been blurred. In my earlier martial arts expriences, the term was known as “overkill.” This was the term used illustrate the overwhelming responses to a threat. The theory was to respond until you felt it was safe to discontinue. The threat would be neutralized and you could walk or run away and call the cops. Now, it is more common to see numerous methods for finishing off your attacker. From the UFC we have learned the phrase “tap out or pass out.” Cute. Or how about the military and the infamous “security shot,” referring to putting an extra round in the enemy just to make sure they are dead?
No, I haven’t turned pacifist and I definately don’t turn the other cheek, but I am careful to teach my students, regardless of whether they are law enforcement, private security or civilians, that there will always be consequences to our responses. The idea that you can kill or maim an attacker, no matter how justified you feel you are, needs to be carefully examined.
Law enforcement generally operates on a force selection based on threat/resistance levels. It was called a force continuum or matrix. There was a complicated, and usually unattainable, series of responses that were recommended for different scenarios. Unfortunately, officers never knew how much force would be necessary to end the confrontation until it was already well under way. Trying to remember what level you were at, while fighting with a mutant, was pretty inconsistant with natural self defense instincts. We have now begun training officers to recognize the “totality of the situation” and respond accordingly. In other words, the size disparity, age, sex, location, weapons, etc. that were present would be the factors that dictated the best response.
Those same factors need to be addressed in the private self defense training as well. Regardless of how justified you believe your actions to be, you will always be accountable. Is it always fair? No, but it is a fact of life. It’s very easy for some instructor to tell you what you should do, or what he/she would do in a given situation, but ultimately you alone will answer for your actions.
What is defensive and when does it become offensive? Depends on the jury I guess. Of course, when your life hangs in the balance, survival trumps political correctness!
For something to be defensive, it would seem natural that someone was an aggressor and someone was a victim. In the purest sense, that is still true. Unfortunately there has been such an meteoric rise of reality fighting schools that the line between defense and offense has been blurred. In my earlier martial arts expriences, the term was known as “overkill.” This was the term used illustrate the overwhelming responses to a threat. The theory was to respond until you felt it was safe to discontinue. The threat would be neutralized and you could walk or run away and call the cops. Now, it is more common to see numerous methods for finishing off your attacker. From the UFC we have learned the phrase “tap out or pass out.” Cute. Or how about the military and the infamous “security shot,” referring to putting an extra round in the enemy just to make sure they are dead?
No, I haven’t turned pacifist and I definately don’t turn the other cheek, but I am careful to teach my students, regardless of whether they are law enforcement, private security or civilians, that there will always be consequences to our responses. The idea that you can kill or maim an attacker, no matter how justified you feel you are, needs to be carefully examined.
Law enforcement generally operates on a force selection based on threat/resistance levels. It was called a force continuum or matrix. There was a complicated, and usually unattainable, series of responses that were recommended for different scenarios. Unfortunately, officers never knew how much force would be necessary to end the confrontation until it was already well under way. Trying to remember what level you were at, while fighting with a mutant, was pretty inconsistant with natural self defense instincts. We have now begun training officers to recognize the “totality of the situation” and respond accordingly. In other words, the size disparity, age, sex, location, weapons, etc. that were present would be the factors that dictated the best response.
Those same factors need to be addressed in the private self defense training as well. Regardless of how justified you believe your actions to be, you will always be accountable. Is it always fair? No, but it is a fact of life. It’s very easy for some instructor to tell you what you should do, or what he/she would do in a given situation, but ultimately you alone will answer for your actions.
What is defensive and when does it become offensive? Depends on the jury I guess. Of course, when your life hangs in the balance, survival trumps political correctness!
Comment