Do you train for hand-to-hand?

[Rastoff]

I wonder if this disparity of force thing you mentioned has something to do in why on that Travon Martin case, Zimmerman was cleared. Because regardless of the other issues, when it came down to that fight, Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked. So he pulled his gun or he would have been beaten to death or close enough.

Disparity of force was certainly part of the decision, but it really boiled down to the fact that Zimmerman was being clobbered.

In the eyes of the law, the it is called the "reasonable man" standard. The concept is, would a reasonable man in the same situation had the same fear of death or great bodily harm?

It has to be a fear that any reasonable man would feel. For example, if a person had a deathly fear of spiders and saw a man in a spider costume that terrified him so he shot the guy. Would that pass the reasonable man standard? No, I doubt it. However, if you have a guy on top of you and he's pounding your head against the pavement, then just about anyone would agree that you have a fear of great bodily harm.

 

[Protected One]

I wonder if this disparity of force thing you mentioned has something to do in why on that Travon Martin case, Zimmerman was cleared. Because regardless of the other issues, when it came down to that fight, Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked. So he pulled his gun or he would have been beaten to death or close enough.

No. Disparity of force was not a factor. It had more to do with Florida's law on stand your ground (google it and read the last 2 paragraphs). Even though Zimmerman didn't invoke SYG, I understand it was still explained to the jury - and thus (I believe) a factor in the verdict. In essence it says that a person can use deadly force if they feel they are in jeopardy of great bodily harm or loss of life...even if THEY instigated the situation that led to it! Which is exactly what Zimmerman did.

 

[Protected One]

To the O.P.:
Here is a link to a video of a man by the name of Sgt. Rory Miller. He has written a book that I believe may be of some use to you. It's called "Facing Violence: Preparing for the unexpected". I highly recommend it!

To those of you with martial arts experience, I recommend his second book: "Meditations on Violence: A comparrison of martial arts training and real world violence: You will benefit!

GregsMartialArts - YouTube

 

[66Park]

It's called common sense and knowing the law. Knowing when DISPARITY OF FORCE applies.

Several years ago here locally an older man and a younger man got into an argument. Over nothing. The younger man punched the older man knocking him to the ground. The punch didn't kill him. But when he hit his head on the curb, that killed him.

If any man regardless of age, size, strength, or skill picks a fight with me, I will do everything I can to avoid getting hurt. But the longer he persists, the greater chance that he has of getting shot.

I WILL go home to my family. It's my responsibility to them to do so unharmed. Even if I have to explain my actions in a court of law.

I don't understand why some don't understand this cause it's really quite simple.

When a man attacks another man he assumes that he has the upper hand. And even though he may, assuming is the most dangerous thing a man can do because he thinks it's going to be easy. That we won't fight back. And eventually he will run into someone that will simply shoot him instead of taking a beating.

I agree with all you say here. I originally said that if somebody punched me in the eye and did nothing else, no escalation, then he'd walk away, and I'd have a black eye. Then there was a follow up saying basically if I am punched, I should assume I'm being attacked. Somehow, I don't think that telling a judge and jury "Yes, your honor, he punched me in the nose. I fell to the ground. He just stood there laughing at me, so I blew his head off because when he punched me, I assumed he was trying to kill me" is going to go over real well. It needs to be more than that if I'm going to defend myself with lethal force. It depends totally on the facts surrounding the punch. If a guy yells "I'm gonna kill you, m*****f***er", he's two hundred fifty pounds of muscle, and he starts beating on you, I think at that point you have a much better chance of assuming he is trying to kill you and that you have to defend yourself. The point is that it ALL depends on what the facts are at the time. In my theoretical fight, one punch was thrown and the guy walked away. My choice would be to leave my gun in the holster and not escalate. I have no desire to put the rest of my life on the line with the possibility of jail, lawyer's fees, and a civil suit, if I don't have to.

An example of disparity of force...When I was studying combat shooting privately, one of my teacher's other students was in a dark parking lot with his girlfriend getting into their car after seeing a movie. A very muscular man much larger than the student came at them yelling "I'm going to kill you m*****f***er!" My fellow student put two rounds of .45 hollowpoints into the guy's chest. He was dead before he hit the ground. The student wasn't charged. In that case, if I'm remembering it correctly, there wasn't even a punch thrown. The attacker made his intentions clear, there was a disparity of force, and the student defended himself. That was in Georgia. I don't know if it would have been as easy for my fellow student in another state.

All I'm saying is that everything depends on the facts at the time, and I don't intend to assume anything. If something happens, I'll make the best decision I can based on the facts in front of me. If I can get away or deescalate, that is what I'll do. If I can't, and my life is threatened, I'll be forced to defend myself, and that is how I would hope my actions would look to a judge and jury - that I did what I could until I had no other choice. It is also necessary for me to know at the deepest level that I did everything possible to not take someone's life. It can't be an easy thing to live with.

 

[Smoke]

Well, ok. Whatever you want to do is your decision and your responsibility. I have no desire to shoot someone that isn't threatening my life. If somebody slaps you, do you assume the right of deadly force? Where do you start assuming? If I don't feel my life is threatened, or I'm not in danger of grave bodily harm, the gun stays in its holster. Period. But you can feel free to proceed under any assumption you want. Whatever decision has to be made has to be made based on the facts at hand, not a theoretical discussion on an internet forum. I've been in one life or death situation, and it was pretty obvious. I just had no way to defend myself. I remedied that. I haven't gotten into a fight with anyone since the fourth grade.

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. The way I read the OP he’s not talking about some random street fight he’s talking about being prepared for a surprise attack as in a mugging.

I haven’t been in an argument that escalated to a fight since I left the Army. If I'm practicing situational awareness I should see any situation such as an argument that might result in some unknown person punching me developing and avoid it.

It’s been my experience (notwithstanding the knock out game) that people don’t just walk up to someone on the street out of the blue and punch them unless they are attacking.

One of the key components of both my martial arts training and my firearms training has been avoidance and de-escalation if at all possible.

If I’m walking around with a gun I can’t afford to get into some random pissing contest with a stranger over some perceived slight, I have to be willing to be the one to back down every time. If a guy wants to yell at me for cutting him off in traffic I apologize and take the blame even if I was parked when he said it happened.

If I follow that course I shouldn’t have to worry about someone walking up to me and popping me in the eye.

 

[islamoradamark]

there is no reason for someone to just jump you or attack you that is a threat on you , you dont know you have to defend your self and your going to do it the best way possible for you and family. one action causes a reaction

 

[66Park]

I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. The way I read the OP he’s not talking about some random street fight he’s talking about being prepared for a surprise attack as in a mugging.

I haven’t been in an argument that escalated to a fight since I left the Army. If I'm practicing situational awareness I should see any situation such as an argument that might result in some unknown person punching me developing and avoid it.

It’s been my experience (notwithstanding the knock out game) that people don’t just walk up to someone on the street out of the blue and punch them unless they are attacking.

One of the key components of both my martial arts training and my firearms training has been avoidance and de-escalation if at all possible.

If I’m walking around with a gun I can’t afford to get into some random pissing contest with a stranger over some perceived slight, I have to be willing to be the one to back down every time. If a guy wants to yell at me for cutting him off in traffic I apologize and take the blame even if I was parked when he said it happened.

If I follow that course I shouldn’t have to worry about someone walking up to me and popping me in the eye.

I think we're on the same page here. I no doubt misunderstood your comment, which is easy to do on the net when you have nothing but the words in front of you to determine intent. My theoretical situation was just a way of saying when you are carrying a gun, the responsibility that goes with that means that you may have to let some things slide without reacting with violence in order to do your best to deescalate the situation. The gun is for when there is no other option.

 

[Old TexMex]

It can't hurt,

By the time it comes to a wrestling match, it is legal for self defense "in the gravest extreme".
I'm not about to square off with some clown to "settle it like men".
What I know about hand fighting I learned a long time ago, it still works, because anatomy hasn't changed, and nothing I learned involved high kicks, spins or referees.

Yes, "they" do require me to go through some exercises and motions that are martial arts stuff, but no one in the field ever uses it. (Speaking here about my field, not anyone else's). It keeps me limber, so that's good.
The training with a blue gun, a heavy bag and another man are good for "getting loose" so I can either get away, or reach a weapon.

 

[TexasArmed]

Well, ok. Whatever you want to do is your decision and your responsibility. I have no desire to shoot someone that isn't threatening my life. If somebody slaps you, do you assume the right of deadly force? Where do you start assuming? If I don't feel my life is threatened, or I'm not in danger of grave bodily harm, the gun stays in its holster. Period. But you can feel free to proceed under any assumption you want. Whatever decision has to be made has to be made based on the facts at hand, not a theoretical discussion on an internet forum. I've been in one life or death situation, and it was pretty obvious. I just had no way to defend myself. I remedied that. I haven't gotten into a fight with anyone since the fourth grade.

When your young, tough and fit, one can afford to take chances on the outcome of a physical scuffle, or wrestling match. Old men who have wrestling matches with a young fit attacker are
more likely to have their gun taken away from them and used on them. So if I am attacked physically and I am carrying my
guns, it is a life or death situation since I don't want my guns
used on me. Some predators prey on the old and the disabled.
and the wolves usually attack old deer, as well as young calves
that they perceive as easy prey. So if one does everything one can do to avoid the fight and they still want a wrestling match or a scuffle, yes, I will go for my guns as I will not be a willing
victim.

 

[BCDWYO]

Wearing my Like button out. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and advice. This is just what I was looking for.

 

[66Park]

Wearing my Like button out. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and advice. This is just what I was looking for.

It's a good topic. Thanks for bringing it up. The beauty of defending myself with a handgun is I love shooting, so I go to the range regularly and practice. I don't have to force myself to do what I love to do. Shooting is what I do for pleasure.

A gun has the potential to protect someone who can't protect themselves hand to hand. However, I LOVED Aikido, and if you have the interest and the drive, martial arts are great and can be very useful, even as you get older. When I was younger, I took a train for a half hour each direction eight times a week for the classes. Without the interest or ability to keep up the practice, it's easy for your hand to hand skills to fail you when you need them. It's easy for your shooting skills to as well. They both require a lot of effort and dedication, but for an older person or someone with a physical issue, I think your chances are a whole lot better with the gun. I no longer have the drive to reacquire martial arts skills and keep them tuned up. I wish I did. It can be a lot of fun!

 

[ispcapt]

Why do you carry a firearm? It's for your protection in a deadly force situation. Right? So the only time you're going to protect yourself is when you're in a deadly force situation? It doesn't matter if your 17 or 77 you're more likely to have to protect yourself from a non-deadly force threat than a deadly force encounter. And if anyone thinks they can talk their way out of every physical confrontation then they're just setting themselves up for ending up on the short end.
One of my defensive tactics instructors had a saying. "When the only tool in your tool box is a hammer then every problem becomes a nail."

 

[Lost Lake]

I am in a similar situation as Smoke,
49, and I earned a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do 5 years ago. I do 4 miles on my elliptical every day and work out on a Bowflex every other. I can bench the stack (210lbs) 20 times no problem.

I have no delusions about fighting a 20 something year old. If necessary I could maybe fight my way out of a corner if I was lucky, and retrieve my weapon.

Becoming a Black Belt taught me there's a lot of fighting to do and a lot of ways to lose said fights. I know some good moves, but in reality I believe you should consistently know a couple effective procedures and practice the snot out of them.

Most effective: Smooth draw and excellent aim.

.

 

[Rastoff]

There are three types of martial arts schools; historical or traditional, sport and self-defense. Every school contains aspects of all three, but every school focuses on one.

Historical/Traditional
This school is focused on doing things exactly the way master X did it 2,000 years ago. The moves, stances and strikes must be perfect and there is only one way to do a particular technique or move. These schools often avoid any improvements or modifications to old techniques. Effective, but rigid.

Sport
My sister holds a 3rd degree black belt in Tae-Kwon-Do and her school fits this description. They have many "forms" that must be memorized to achieve rank advancement. Their sparring is focused toward scoring points more than doing damage. They host and travel to competitions where excellence in forms or sparring for points is the focus. They require pads when sparring, but no one wears a cup. The groin is an illegal target and they never use it. These schools are super popular and out number all other schools at least 10 to 1.

Self-Defense
This style of school spends most of their time on damage to the attacker. They work hard on the "combat mindset" and being aware. Chuck Sullivan, mentioned earlier, used to bring old couches and bar stools into his school and have the students spar in street clothes. He figured if you're gonna learn to defend yourself, you might as well practice it in an environment that you're likely to be in. Techniques are taught, but only to learn the movements. The idea is to use whatever is necessary for the situation that presents itself. Precision is not the goal, effectiveness is. These types of schools are not popular. Invariably they include some pain in the instruction because they seek to be as real as possible. Being hurt is different from being injured. Hurt means you feel some pain, you walk it off and get back to work. Injured means you're bleeding or need medical attention. A true self-defense school will include some pain, it's the nature of the business, but they work hard not to injure any student. This is why they are not popular and only 20% of the students stick with it long enough to earn a black belt.


Please don't take the previous as an attack on different schools, it's not. Anyone who devotes themselves to a course of instruction in any martial art will be able to effectively use it to defend themselves. I'm just pointing out that there are differences. Let's face it, all empty hand martial arts were developed to defend against tyrannical governments that outlawed fighting implements. This is why I say, I am the weapon. Anything I'm holding is just a tool.

 

[ProgressiveTruth]

I understand what you are saying. I was trained hand to hand many moons ago. I was thrown 15ft into the air by a car and landed on my face and hands. 80% of my body is broken. Much more than my body was broken.

 

[ProgressiveTruth]

Ok, great. Just don't flip this scene. If the rolls were reversed no one would have heard of that law. And no one has...till now.

 

[Protected One]

Anyone who devotes themselves to a course of instruction in any martial art will be able to effectively use it to defend themselves.

Well, I wouldn't go that far Rastoff. There are many recorded instances of people, well trained in a martial art, that were sadly disappointed when their skills were put to the test on the street.

I think you would really be glad if you read Rory Millers Book-Meditations on violence.

 

[Rastoff]

Well, I wouldn't go that far Rastoff. There are many recorded instances of people, well trained in a martial art, that were sadly disappointed when their skills were put to the test on the street.

This is true, but my point was not that you'll prevail on the street, just that I don't consider one school/style definitively better than another.

Even so, note that I said someone who devotes themselves to it. Most are just filling a gap in their lives and aren't really devoted to the art. A devoted student in anything will excel at it.

 

[Kanewpadle]

When your young, tough and fit, one can afford to take chances on the outcome of a physical scuffle, or wrestling match. Old men who have wrestling matches with a young fit attacker are
more likely to have their gun taken away from them and used on them. So if I am attacked physically and I am carrying my
guns, it is a life or death situation since I don't want my guns
used on me. Some predators prey on the old and the disabled.
and the wolves usually attack old deer, as well as young calves
that they perceive as easy prey. So if one does everything one can do to avoid the fight and they still want a wrestling match or a scuffle, yes, I will go for my guns as I will not be a willing
victim.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Even one punch is too much. I intend to put a stop to the festivities BEFORE I get punched.

If they ignore verbal commands then they will be looking down the barrel of my gun.

Like I said before, it really isn't that difficult.

 

[Rastoff]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Even one punch is too much. I intend to put a stop to the festivities BEFORE I get punched.

If they ignore verbal commands then they will be looking down the barrel of my gun.

Like I said before, it really isn't that difficult.

This is absolutely the right thinking. The problem is that you don't always have the ability to avoid physical altercations. The guy could rush you or sneak up from behind. Situational awareness is great, but you can't be aware of everything all the time. This is why we should all get at least a little empty hand training.