Protecting others

pearsquasher

Do you ever train to protect your attacker?


Interesting concept isn't it?

I do now and then following concepts trained within the art.

SVJKarate

No, I don't. I guess if the attacker was simply a person unhinged through excess use of alcohol, or drugs, or simply somebody having an emotional melt-down there would be a plausible reason to want to protect them, but I don't spend time training for that. On occasions I will train in order to protect a third party from an attacker.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Well yes & no.

Yes, Judo is packed full of stuff which are illegal in competition as they'd be dangerous to your opponent, but I know you're talking about an attacker on the street.

This time the answer is no because those techniques which are safe in Judo are very dangerous on the street, and some (Osoto Gari for example) could be lethal on the street.. I work security in Templebar and I'm very mindful of what I do when someone attacks me (I front the door so I'm liable all the time).

I'd always try take preventative actions before a fight (often times I'm not afforded that time).. If I'm attacked there are degree's of force open to me, control & restraint, weight of numbers (from other security staff) to full on fisty cuffs ~ but always being mindful of limiting any hurt.

pearsquasher

Lylah Orange Vanity wrote: »

Well yes & no.

Yes, Judo is packed full of stuff which are illegal in competition as they'd be dangerous to your opponent, but I know you're talking about an attacker on the street.

This time the answer is no because those techniques which are safe in Judo are very dangerous on the street, and some (Osoto Gari for example) could be lethal on the street.. I work security in Templebar and I'm very mindful of what I do when someone attacks me (I front the door so I'm liable all the time).

I'd always try take preventative actions before a fight (often times I'm not afforded that time).. If I'm attacked there are degree's of force open to me, control & restraint, weight of numbers (from other security staff) to full on fisty cuffs ~ but always being mindful of limiting any hurt.

Very good and its good to hear a balanced mindset. Also interesting that specific "limiting hurt" techniques are not in your curriculum. Fair enough if your art is a sport (judo, bjj?).

As for " if the attacker was simply a person unhinged through excess use of alcohol, or drugs, or simply somebody having an emotional melt-down" - well i would argue that MOST assaults (in Ireland) are in that context and that a non-competitive martial art should address this - That is if a sober person is dealing with someone in a "temporary" state, and not just a predatorial thug out for kicks, they should think about the idea of minimal injury while dealing with them, if that last-resort option occurs. Not saying it's easy.

I was moments away from having to deal with a drunk hassling his partner recently and absolutely knew if i had to step in to stop him assaulting her then I couldn't just let fly no-matter-what. As it turns out my loud phonecall to the gards deterred him but it was tense. (He'd already punched a concrete wall five times!)

The two personal assaults on me in the last 20 years were also equally based on drink/drugs/emotion and, not thuggishness, and these turned out fine because of this sense of managing the conflict with the idea of I-could-just-overwhelm-them-but-theres-a better-way. In other word I had this idea of protecting the attacker and we do train for that in the Bujinkan and wish to know if other arts do.

cletus

I've never come across 'attacker protection' techniques. Perhaps in a professional setting, such as door work ala Makikomi, or the gardai, this would be up there as a primary concern, but I'm not sure in personal setting how much concern I would have for the emotional, mental or physical wellbeing of a person who decided to attack me for no reason

pearsquasher

cletus wrote: »

I've never come across 'attacker protection' techniques. Perhaps in a professional setting, such as door work ala Makikomi, or the gardai, this would be up there as a primary concern, but I'm not sure in personal setting how much concern I would have for the emotional, mental or physical wellbeing of a person who decided to attack me for no reason

I guess my argument is that you should have this concern if

a) You're training to inflict damage
b) The attacker is in a a temporary state thru drink, drugs, emotion, etc

I often hear that a judge would take any martial arts training a party to an assault would have, into account, be they victim, attacker or third party but I have no idea if that actually happens.

Either way I think it should be considered and ideally incorporated into training, professional or not.

cletus

I got the point of your post, judges usually look to see if you tried to remove yourself from the situation. Normally self defence only works as a defence in the law if there was no other avenue open to you. Equally if you do have to physically defend yourself, you're only allowed to use as much force as is necessary to extricate yourself from the situation. So if you did something like you see in, for example, a krav maga YouTube video where the 'attacker' gets his head stomped into a puddle, in the eyes of the law you become the aggressor, you are no longer defending yourself.

I'm not sure about the 'training to inflict damage' bit. Surely all ma's train to inflict damage?

My background, if it makes any difference, is mostly bjj, to a lesser degree mma, with a sprinkling of karate thrown in

pearsquasher

That's my point - all MA's do train to inflict damage but if a likely assault is more along the lines of those I've mentioned then I reckon a martial art needs to consider using minimal damage/maximum control over the general more potentially lethal max-damage techniques.

One of my senior students does another martial art based on Systema - a Russian military-style combative. While I general think his movement compliments what I show him in my class (unlike taekwondo movement, for example), his intention is often "militaristic" in nature as if every defensive technique is against someone who is actually trying to assassinate you. ie lots of neck-cranks and head-trauma strikes. This sort of mindset just seems OTT so with Bujinkan training we emphasis being is a position to do that, sure, but being able to do something more civil as a priority, mind-set wise. I don't mean by fluffing up a pillow for the attacker to fall onto but things like , for example, striking parts of the head which are less vicious and more about balance control or not automatically taking down someone such that they land on their head every time but being able to control how they land. again, not easy but i feel worth the practice. I mean its easier to go max-damage on someone than to control them - that's the challenge of MA training in my book - control rather than "win".

cletus

I see what you are saying. Personally I've never been in an altercation in public with anybody in my 36 years on this planet. I've had to talk my way out of some situations, but mostly I try to completely avoid any form of confrontation early on if I can see it.

As to having regard for where any punch would land in a row, I can only gauge this by my experience of stand up striking. Given that a hypothetically drunk assailant would likely be in or around a pub, then its safe to assume that I would also have had a few pints. In this case, landing a clean punch at all would be difficult enough, without trying to target specific areas.

With regard to throwing or taking down a guy safely, I said it in the thread about gardai restraint, its very difficult to control and restrain somebody that doesn't want to be, and is actively trying not to be, restrained. More so if you are trying to do so in a manner which causes the aggressor as little harm as possible.

I think, in summary, and hoping I'm never actually in the situation, my response to a physical attack would be to hit the person as hard and as fast as I could, get out of the area, then make my way to the nearest garda station, to explain that I'd just been attacked and had to defend myself

SVJKarate

pearsquasher wrote: »

That is if a sober person is dealing with someone in a "temporary" state, and not just a predatorial thug out for kicks, they should think about the idea of minimal injury while dealing with them, if that last-resort option occurs. Not saying it's easy.

Certainly it would not be easy, and arts like karate which focus primarily (albeit not exclusively) on striking techniques will find it a challenge to adapt to a strategy of containment without causing harm. Karateka typically spend very little time practising restraints (zero time in many clubs) so 'protecting the attacker' amounts to either trying to hit only just hard enough to deter the attacker from continuing, or simply applying a throw and hoping that the attacker is slow to get up from it (allowing you make good your escape). I've never needed to apply the physical art in self-defence, so I can't say how comfortable I'd be in trying to take on that kind of responsibility.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Just another thought on this, and replying to no one in particular.

But something to bear in mind if you're going to be in some kind of altercation on the street which you might have to answer for [your actions] to a Garda/court.

Prevention ~ could I have prevented the incident getting physical.

Justification ~ were my actions justified.

Minimum use of force ~ As I said above, control & restraint, weight of numbers right up to strikes to the body/head.. Often times your attacker/aggressor is not with in clinch range but you know they'll attack you (they might have a weapon/stick or swinging wild punches) ~ a good ol' kick in the bollox is your only man and will put a stop to most people.

But hey, if there's an attack on the family/home then IMO all bets are off & God help the bastard who's foolish enough to invade my home or threaten my family ~ I'd go straight for blowing their fooking brains out if I had the means.

pearsquasher

My recent near-incident involved a call to the gards while a guy was being abusive to his partner on the street. They were both drunk and he'd smashed his hand on the wall. She actually had a bloody nose but I never saw him hit her. I stayed within dealing-with-him-range but outside his immediate reach as they continued arguing. She was not trying to get away so that introduced a certain dynamic to it all, possibly causing less intervention from me. I mean if he was physically stopping her leaving the area I think I'd have acted somehow and things would have escalated. I also ignored his verbals to me as arguing with a drunk is like debating with a christian - utterly futile. I simply remained present and intent-full, if that makes sense. I'm sure the doormen here know the story. It seemed to work.


But by jaysus if he swung for her I'd have HAD to react no question at all, knowing full well that she would probably have attacked me too. All-in-all despite my nerves, the overall shape of the situation seemed physically manageable without resorting to full on fighting the guy - the dumbest tactic of all I'd say. My art has built in tactics for dealing with restraint, multiples, de-escalation and I like to think it would have served me well in managing them both safely and without undue injury. Yeh hindsight great etc and it wasn't the worst level of altercation, but if nothing else it was a fascinating experience and to me a million miles from sports-thinking. In fact THIS is what I train for (as well as the love of movement, skill acquisition etc )

Btw it ended with me following them as they headed down the street and ended up going into a hostel with each other. The gards came 20 mins later, i sent them to the hostel and they returned to me saying they'd calmed down, she didn't make any complaint, and the manager of the hostel was informed. Sorted. Lets hope they had a nice sober breakfast after the best make-up session ever

Pat Mustard

pearsquasher wrote: »

She was not trying to get away so that introduced a certain dynamic to it all, possibly causing less intervention from me. I mean if he was physically stopping her leaving the area I think I'd have acted somehow and things would have escalated.

...

But by jaysus if he swung for her I'd have HAD to react no question at all, knowing full well that she would probably have attacked me too.

If she was not trying to get away, there must have been a fair risk that they would both turn on you, either physically or with regard to what they might say to Gardai.

pearsquasher

Probably .. but it still doesn't mean he should be let hit her.

cletus

That's a different situation though, you're not being directly attacked there, the whole thing is developing relatively slowly for you, so planning out your 'actions' is maybe easier.


As an aside, I don't know how the self defence angle would work had you hit the guy, considering you actively placed yourself in the situation, and she and didn't leave him

pearsquasher

cletus wrote: »

That's a different situation though, you're not being directly attacked there, the whole thing is developing relatively slowly for you, so planning out your 'actions' is maybe easier.


As an aside, I don't know how the self defence angle would work had you hit the guy, considering you actively placed yourself in the situation, and she and didn't leave him

Neither do I but I do remember thinking: "I've called the gards, she could start swinging at me, but feck the law, he ain't hitting her like he hit that wall - I'll deal with the consequences later".

Plus I was pretty confident I could prevent him hitting her at the range I was at without excessive force (eg punching him the back of the head or something brutal like that). I was in an advantageous position for lots of lesser-but-effective options(low kicks, body strikes, grappling etc etc) including dealing with all out retaliation by him an/or her. There was also CCTV n the street so I'd have that on my side. Anyway this was last-resort thinking which thankfully dissolved.

Mellor

A lot of what you mention above is preventative action. Situational awareness, violence as a last resort, etc. How does that relate to training, as they would appear to be more the result of conscious decisions rather than training.

Like Cletus my background is in grappling. So I might look at it from a different perspective. Grappling tends to have a natural mechanism to deal with escalation built in.
If somebody is unhinged, but not malicious. There are pins, and positions to control them. If it comes to it, choking somebody unconscious is a useful option.

That said, if somebody genuinely attacked me, and I felt breaking their arm would force them to stop. I'd have no reservations about doing that.

pearsquasher

A lot of what you mention above is preventative action. Situational awareness, violence as a last resort, etc. How does that relate to training, as they would appear to be more the result of conscious decisions rather than training.

I hear you and you're right. But bujinkan training is highly geared towards the kind of end-game I desired IF it went physical - subjugation, restraint, control. To that end, my preventative actions were not only in response to what was actually happening but also in response to any potential worse-case-scenario that COULD happen, and these we do train for.

I'm not saying a boxer say, would've just gone up and punched the guy just because he punches a lot in training, or a grapplers immediate thinking would be to choke him out, but I am saying that these sport-arts may not specifically give one the tools to deal with less brutal control methods. Pretty much all we do in bujinkan is deal with tactical protection of self/others/the attacker with a very particular inclination to do NOT the hardest-fastest technique but, rather the most PRUDENT one for the situation given the law.

IF possible and ideally of course, give things get messy in reality.

Mellor

pearsquasher wrote: »

But bujinkan training is highly geared towards the kind of end-game I desired IF it went physical - subjugation, restraint, control.

Fully disclosure, I know very little of bujinkan. Nothing really. But I would honestly be surprised if the subjugation, control, etc was better than sports grappling art.

or a grapplers immediate thinking would be to choke him out, but I am saying that these sport-arts may not specifically give one the tools to deal with less brutal control methods.

Grappling, especially sports grappling, is fundamentally about control. Submissions are a minor part tbh, and tbh you can't really launch into choke without first establishing control.
Obviously in a sports situation you are dealing with increasingly advanced opponents, counters, escapes etc. But the basics are always there.

As above I know nothing of how bujinkan implements those skills. But from my experience grappling definitely does.

pearsquasher

Mellor wrote: »

pearsquasher wrote: »

But bujinkan training is highly geared towards the kind of end-game I desired IF it went physical - subjugation, restraint, control.[/bjj]
Fully disclosure, I know very little of bujinkan. Nothing really. But I would honestly be surprised if the subjugation, control, etc was better than sports grappling art.


Grappling, especially sports grappling, is fundamentally about control. Submissions are a minor part tbh, and tbh you can't really launch into choke without first establishing control.
Obviously in a sports situation you are dealing with increasingly advanced opponents, counters, escapes etc. But the basics are always there.

As above I know nothing of how bujinkan implements those skills. But from my experience grappling definitely does.

I don't dispute the alive skill levels of grappling and its ability to control etc - I 100% dig BJJ for example and am a big fan of the Gracies breakdowns. Bujinkan includes some of these things as well as strikes/weapons integrated together. Our grappling repertoire is not as extensive for sure but its there. I definitely appreciate that a well trained BJJrs would've tackled the situations similarly.

Blackthorn Fight School

I have trained a very small amount of bujinkan but my overall background is pretty mixed but right now I am mainly involved in BJJ and MMA. However I still train a lot in Dog Brothers Martial Arts so have decent experience with weapons.

Like any style how you train is usually as important as the content and as you mention BJJ has a huge depth of techniques. If you are training to safely deal with someone in a fight then some form of grappling is usually the best both from a control and from a legal stand point. For example if your a striker it usually means trying to hit them enough to knock them out or make them give up and with drugs etc in the mix or in a bar etc where the person might fall badly this is not the best option usually.

I had seen an old wrestling coach of mine stop a junkie robbing a shop before basically he arm dragged him got a chin strap and forced him to the floor where he got knee on belly and held him till the guards showed.

Now I know most traditional arts argue about weapons and the variables of street fights etc I have sparred in the Dog Brother way with some legit grapplers and even with active and concealed weapons with some training they can usually deal with most situations that come up. This does require some training of course but once your used to reacting to an opponent at full speed you usually have a big advantage but of course you have to modify how you grapple if there is a threat of weapons.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Just on BJJ & Judo (I pick both because they're pretty much both sides of the same coin) and protecting/restraining an aggressor.

Restraining an aggressor on the street is entirely different to the club, its a whole new world.. On the street you're liable to be bitten, pulled/assaulted by other people (I'll get to this later), the person you're trying to control doesn't know that you have the skills to severely hurt them or choke them out, so what you might say!.. Well they WON'T tap out, so are you really going to smash an elbow, dislocate a shoulder or break a wrist?.

Mostly (thankfully) you're not, because we're all decent lads aren't we?.. So mostly we let the person up with a warning (hope) that they walk away from you ~ what happens when they don't, and you don't have weight of numbers on your side?.

You do it all again, try have someone call the cops and hope they get to you before you or the aggressor goes up a level.

Its one thing training to KO someone, or knowing that we have the ability to kill someone (but this isn't feudal Japan so we don't).. But I've knocked out lots of people, and believe me its one of the most frightening things you'll do ~ the very first thing I think is 'fook, fook, fook pray they're ok'... 'fook, fook, fook I'm going to prison'.

Its horrible, its a horrible, horrible feeling thinking that you're off to prison (unless you're a scumbag).. So unless its your home & family being threatened, then protection for your opponent is protection for you too.

Blackthorn Fight School

Its horrible, its a horrible, horrible feeling thinking that you're off to prison (unless you're a scumbag).. So unless its your home & family being threatened, then protection for your opponent is protection for you too.

100% this

cletus

on the legality of grappling to restrain somebody, the Reasonable Man test is used. self defence is not meant to be a considered or premeditated action. it should be an immediate response to a threat.

So, the courts apply the Reasonable Man test, or in other words, what would a normal everyday person have done in the situation. It is more likely that the normal ordinary person would try to get away, or failing that, hit out at their attacker.

It is less likely that an average joe on the street would slip under a punch, take the back and inc (or whatever your favourite standing setup to submission might be). This could be seen as a premeditated action by the courts

Or at least thats my imperfect understanding, having had it explained to me by somebody with greater knowledge the myself

pearsquasher

Another aspect of all this is controlling mental health patients. I've never done it myself but have a good friend who works in an institute for the criminally insane in Scotland and she has done so. She actually demonstrated a restraint on me once and while we have similar techniques in my art it was her swiftness and intention that struck home to me. You just knew she didn't mess about. Total control, no injury. Pain yes, balance breaking yes, injury no. Really quite perfect.

The messed up thing was though is that she said she "learned on the job" which seems an unnecessary risk and she has been injured before. But I appreciate that learning on a course or in a dojo/sports club requires a lot more time with obviously lower risks, it being a controlled environment. Same seems to be the case with the gardai. Minimal training + pick-it-up -as-you-go. I guess they outweigh the costs vs benefits.

On the opposite end of this are professional learning regimes specific to the mental health industry where techniques proven to be useful ARE thought and trained to staff on an ongoing basis. In Spain I had the pleasure of training in such a facility that has taught 3000 staff, according to them, in these techniques, based on bujinkan training, albeit streamlined and tailored for particular situations. (they ain't doing sword practice!) .They do things like team-work man-handling. situation and environment tactics eg Your at a desk and a guy lunges for you over it. They also mentioned how they use feedback from real experiences within the industry to inform the content.

Its a real pity these things aren't done in this country as it seems readily doable and to me essential for front-line staff dealing with potential assaults.

Blackthorn Fight School

With the legality of grappling again not a legal expert but my point is to the outsider two guys grappling looks like a school yard tussle and most people have no idea what grappling is. If you suplex someone they will realise your well trained. But if your a striker and someone swings a punch and you light him up with punches, knees, elbows, headbutts and kicks you will look like the aggressor. On the reasonable man idea someone swings you react there is some grappling someone ends up in on top there are enough rugby players etc that unless its some flashy grappling or limbs being snapped grappling is usually a safer choice. Never mind the whole braking / cutting hands when punching things I think many here would agree that most people have no idea how to punch without gloves on even those who have trained.

I agree with you pearsquasher it amazes me how little training prison guards, gardai and similar people get here. I know a handful of prison guards in the states and they too get basic training but are encouraged to continue their education.

Mellor

cletus wrote: »

So, the courts apply the Reasonable Man test, or in other words, what would a normal everyday person have done in the situation. It is more likely that the normal ordinary person would try to get away, or failing that, hit out at their attacker.

It is less likely that an average joe on the street would slip under a punch, take the back and inc (or whatever your favourite standing setup to submission might be). This could be seen as a premeditated action by the courts

Or at least thats my imperfect understanding, having had it explained to me by somebody with greater knowledge the myself

I'm pretty sure that the "reasonable man" is not equivalent to an normal ordinary person, average joe type. It's used to benchmark what a reasonable person would do in a given specific situation. An average joe isnt trained in martial arts. If the person in question has martial arts training, then that forms part of the situation. So he essentially becomes a "reasonable martial artist", and your actions are assessed against that.
Of course a better understand of reasonable force comes with that training/knowledge.

cletus

I agree with the start of your post, maybe I didn't express very well, but I don't think that your martial arts training will be taken into account in any positive light, ala the reasonable martial artist. Reasonable force is not determined by the person defending themselves, its done objectively, by a jury. So the jury have to believe that you acted reasonably, or you believed that you were acting reasonably, if that makes sense

Another issue could be that in restraining an attacker you are no longer trying to distance yourself from the danger posed, which would be one of the main ideas for self defence.

The main thing, though, would seem to be that, in defending yourself, you can't be sire that you are protected by the law, each judge and court sitting on each case is going to be different

cletus

Double post

Mellor

cletus wrote: »

I agree with the start of your post, maybe I didn't express very well, but I don't think that your martial arts training will be taken into account in any positive light, ala the reasonable martial artist. Reasonable force is not determined by the person defending themselves, its done objectively, by a jury. So the jury have to believe that you acted reasonably, or you believed that you were acting reasonably, if that makes sense

I really depends on the specific situation. Jump into somebody elses row, and beat up the attacker, you'll be judged according most likely. But say the guy lunges at you, you duck under, double leg and pin him there until the cop arrive. That's reasonable actions imo. I imagine most would see it that way.

Another issue could be that in restraining an attacker you are no longer trying to distance yourself from the danger posed, which would be one of the main ideas for self defence.

If you can get away, you should leave imo. But if the lunatic will just swing at some other innocent bystander. Then you are being reasonable by holding him here.

The main thing, though, would seem to be that, in defending yourself, you can't be sire that you are protected by the law, each judge and court sitting on each case is going to be different

Yup.

cletus

Mellor wrote: »

I really depends on the specific situation. Jump into somebody elses row, and beat up the attacker, you'll be judged according most likely. But say the guy lunges at you, you duck under, double leg and pin him there until the cop arrive. That's reasonable actions imo. I imagine most would see it that way.

yep but thats your reasonable view based on your training. I wouldn't be convinced I could get a majority of people on a jury to agree that it would be more reasonable to apply some 'karate' or 'cage fighting' holds, than just hit a guy back

SVJKarate

Mellor wrote: »

Jump into somebody elses row, and beat up the attacker, you'll be judged according most likely.

And of course, unless you've been there from the very start, it may not be clear who is "the attacker" when you view somebody else's row. Get involved at your peril, unless you have enough support to simply separate the parties engaging. The best way to get involved may be to take pics / video, and call the Gardaí.

pearsquasher

A very recent documentary on the Bujinkan Headmaster, Hatsumi Sensei, has some little bits on the things I've talked about after 26mins - protecting others, use in mental health industry etc. Just ignore the purple hair

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U_BdyxwHj0

Dyr

Mellor wrote: »

But say the guy lunges at you, you duck under, double leg and pin him there until the cop arrive. That's reasonable actions imo. I imagine most would see it that way.
.

So if the guy smashes the back of his head off the concrete and winds up dead or cabbaged will the jury accept it was reasonable because it never occurred to you that performing a double leg on an untrained opponent in the real world is far more risky than doing it in a gym with a training partner?

Nathan G

I think this entirely hinges on the circumstances relating to the situation. Using reasonable force when you can is the better option however on an extremely determined and aggressive opponent it can get you work against you. Also the justice system is bit of a rabbit hole.

Mellor

Bambi wrote: »

So if the guy smashes the back of his head off the concrete and winds up dead or cabbaged will the jury accept it was reasonable because it never occurred to you that performing a double leg on an untrained opponent in the real world is far more risky than doing it in a gym with a training partner?

Reasonable actions can have unforeseen consequences. They two aren't mutually exclusive.
The same could happen if you punch him once in self defense. Or even a timid push away could result in he tripping and ending up cabbaged. Not all takedowns, punches, kicks etc are equal. Intention is a huge part of it.
I think there's vary too many variable to discuss it in a general context.

Where somebody clearly instigated an attack a certain amount of force in self defense is considered. From what I've read, stopping/continuing once subdued is a major part of the reasonable assessment.