|
|
By Bradley J. Steiner, American Combato
There can never be any justification, rationalization, excuse, or alibi for initiating violence against someone who is not himself placing you in danger or in some way commencing violence against you.
If you start trouble with someone because you have poor impulse control, because you are “angry,” because they “disrespected you,” because you think it’s enjoyable to push someone around, or because you simply do not happen to like a particular individual then, in our opinion, you should be excised from human civilization. You are a detestable life-form—not even an animal—and whatever damages you suffer, you fully deserve.
Because there can be no excuse for initiating violence against someone who is not posing a threat of injury to you, it should be clear (but unfortunately is not clear to some) that using violence to stop another from violating yourself or another innocent person is resoundingly justifiable—even necessary and commendable.
But how far is it really justifiable to go in self-defense? That question is posed by decent people who seek a reasonable and righteous solution to the problem of violent crime. Being decent, a good person has no desire to brutalize and destroy another individual whom he assumes (we believe, incorrectly) is human, also.
The system of British Common Law, upon which the American system of jurisprudence is based, provides evidence of what we say. Being in earnest about seeking justice (as opposed to mere “satisfaction” or “revenge”) the laws of England and America specify that the victim of violent attack may defend himself with whatever degree of force may be required to stop the attack against himself; but having achieved that objective, he may go no further in directing violence against his assailant.
Sounds good. Obviously it is well-intentioned. The result of thoughtful consideration of the problem of violent crime, and a sincere and humane desire to provide for a person’s act of self-defense, while not allowing rampant savagery to dominate an already bad situation.
“Brutality” as such is a very emotive word. It automatically implies to many who hear it used, unjustifiable violence—or uncivilized savagery.
We challenge that idea.
We further insist that the most savage brutality possible for a man to generate can be and normally is quite justifiable when and if he is subjected to extralegal violence in a criminal attack; or if he finds that he must defend his loved ones against such an onslaught.
Please remember and bear forever in mind when you train in self defense that…
- There is no possible way to accurately determine the motive and intention of the individual who attacks you. That remains inside the attacker’s head. And in fact it could range from an intention to merely scare or intimidate you, to a burning determination (for any number of insane “reasons”) to maim or to kill you. You might think you can tell what degree or level of force an assailant intends to employ against you, but you cannot possibly know.
- There is no possible way to accurately assess the abilities of any attacker—or if he isn’t or is armed with one or more weapons, or if he isn’t or is accompanied by one or more cohorts who may be approaching you from behind, or possibly lurking nearby. Appearances are very deceptive; both of the attacker and of the totality of the situation presenting. The wise defender always assumes the worst. He never underestimates or forms a snap-judgement about his attacker. True enough, the defender may not have given his assailant (whom he may not ever have seen before in his life) the slightest objective reason to direct any hostility whatsoever against him.
So what?
The world is full of crackpots and crazies who do not need “objective reasons” for anything that they do.
They run on impulse—are guided like beasts of the jungle, by feelings—and as far as these creatures are concerned, their feeling that they wish to violate someone is ample “justification” for their proceeding to do so. They enjoy it.
What you require as justification for using force must not be confused with that which a violent offender requires before he attacks you.
Violent types, to repeat what we are convinced is an absolute truth about them, are impulse-driven savages whose place is not in civilized society amongst human human beings.
Thus, if and when you are ever subject to unprovoked physical violence do not waste time, thought, or energy worrying about “why” this individual may be violently disposed toward you. Accept the obvious fact that he is, and do what you need to do to stop him and defend yourself.
The image that most people have of someone who is formidable is one thing. The actual way that formidable individuals “look” is quite another.
The fellow who is relatively small and who appears to be lacking in muscle may possess incredible physical strength.
The guy who looks overweight and flabby (like a long time ago Russian weight-lifting champion by the name of Alekseyev) may be as agile as a cat; he may be fast, powerful, and a ruthless, dangerously determined combatant.
The guy with the “washboard abs”, V-shape, and thick arms may be a non-violent fellow who has—very literally—no real ability to inflict injury on another person in unarmed battle. He may be a complete bluff.
How do you know?
You can’t know…and that’s the point we wish to convey here. Because a real-world attack may be launched by literally any individual with any crazy motivation or objective, and he may possess any degree of potential for maiming, crippling, or killing (including weapons, which he has momentarily concealed), self-defense demands that you assume the worst so that you are prepared and ready to defend yourself against the worst possible level of physical violence.
If you assume less than the worst—and the worst happens—where will you end up?
Not a pretty thought.
This is why rational, sane, civilized human beings absolutely refuse to regard any violence as excusable or acceptable (save in controlled, modified form in combat sports, or in legitimate self-defense). It is also why authentic teachers of self-defense address the subject with deadly seriousness, and instruct their students in the physical, tactical, technical, and mental aspects of absolute brutality, should they ever need to act in self or family defense.
BRUTALITY IS JUSTIFIED IN SELF-DEFENSE. Often a real-world attack is clumsily and obviously mounted by an overconfident street scumbag (or multiple street scumbags) who has no doubt about his inevitable victory, and the vulnerability of his intended victim.
Here and now the act of personal defense is relatively simple and very easy to carry out IF the defender does so with immediate, brutal savagery. Such will cancel out the aggressor’s action, injure him severely, and turn him off psychologically—leaving him immediately convinced that he has bitten off way more than he can chew!
However, if hesitation and at best a half-hearted non-injurious action is undertaken to “discourage” the aggressor instead, then the only type of aggressor who might be deterred is one who is really not that motivated or capable, at all. You aren’t worried about that kind of a––hole. You must be concerned with the truly dangerous aggressor…the tough, hardened, psychopathic killer whose onslaught may be fueled with drugs and or liquor, and who will provide you no second chance to survive if he is not stopped forthwith.
Techniques involving controlling and restraining an individual are necessary for law enforcement and security professionals. These individuals have a responsibility that you and I do not have, when it comes to self-defense. They are charged with arrest-and-control of disruptive, resistant, uncooperative, mildly violent types whom they—the officers—have approached.
Self-defense is undertaken when a would-be victim of attack is set upon by an offender or approached by some lout who is bent on starting trouble. Brutality is justified if and when such a situation occurs because mind-reading and predicting the capabilities of your assailant are utterly impossible feats. So do not foolishly attempt them!
“Brutality” may indeed be a loaded or emotive word…even one that, when one speaks of self-defense…is regarded in polite circles as being politically incorrect.
Too bad.
Pleasant thoughts, nice motives, and a desire for peaceable, minimally violent encounters affect nothing. Reality is as it is, and self-defense is neither pleasant, nor sporting, nor easily manageable with “secret skills.”
It is a fast-paced, dangerous, undesired circumstance for its victims, and for those who may be victims to stand a good chance of handling a violent encounter well, they must realize and appreciate that brutality is completely justified when you are forced to defend yourself. And that applies to YOU.