SD vs Combat

[nate45]

After I got out of the Army, for about a fifteen year stretch all I did was pick up the occasional copy of American Handgunner, or Combat Handguns Magazine.

For that time period, neigh even for most of my life, including my time in the military, I was in my own little world and my own instructor in martial arts. Even for the five or so years I was in a Combat Pistol Club, I was the one that made up most of the scenarios. One day after reevaluating my techniques and comparing them to those of others. I realized that most of it fell in the realm of combat and less than lethal it wasn't. Even my hand to hand was too violent and extreme for civilian use.

It was almost impossible for me to imagine a scenario, other than one where a grievous felony was being committed, where law enforcement wouldn't blame me for being too extreme.


Luckily, IRL I'm a nice person and practice aviodance as my first line of defense. However, I'm still thankful for this forum and others for helping me see whats more mainstream in the LEO, SD instructor and legal community. Not too mention mainstream life in general.

Anyway, lets explore some of the key differences between SD and Combat and where they also overlap.

[Double Naught Spy]

Anyway, lets explore some of the key differences between SD and Combat and where they also overlap.

Don't you think you should have started with your views. Of course you are going to need to clearly define what each means first.

What is the goal you are attempting to achieve here?

I realized that most of it fell in the realm of combat and less than lethal it wasn't.

Do you mean to suggest that if lethal force is used that it is combat, but that less than lethal force is self defense???

Even my hand to hand was too violent and extreme for civilian use.

I know-I know, your hands are on file with the FBI as lethal weapons.

Too violent and extreme for civilian use? There should be no reason to believe this unless you are suggesting that you don't have the ability to control your own actions and meter the force you use in an appropriate manner for the situation.

[icedog88]

After spending 12 years in the hyper-aggressive Marine Corps, the biggest difference I see is your actions (not thoughts or planning )in self defense are reactionary rather than forward aggression. Distances comes into play as well in regards to encounters. And finally, as a member of a squad, I had back up. Out here it's SELF defense.

[Strafer Gott]

The biggest difference is if they want to run away, you let them. You don't engage them just because they are still in range.

[CountryUgly]

That's great you brought this up. There is real difference in trained to fight in combat vs training to fight in the streets of the USA. The biggest difference I've seen is the perception of when and how to engage a BG. Distance being the first thing. At 50ft a BG waving a knife and saying he might come at you if you don'y do what he says is more than enough reason to put a round in him and to continue on in combat but in the civilian world unfortunately if you were to do this the DA's office would put you under the jail. Most but not all will only call it justifiable if your attacker is within arms reach. Even when a BG makes his intentions very clear to you the law in a lot of places is in favor of the BG causing you damage before you are able to defend yourself. Take D.C. for instance. The head honcho there is on record saying he would rather see a law abiding citizen be beaten and robbed than the BG taking a fatal round. In the military you are taught that job #1 is protecting yourself and the brothers to either side of you. In the civilian world you are expected to rely on someone with a badge to come to your rescue after the fact and if you absolutly must take matters into your own hands and defend yourself or loved ones there better be a good reason and it better be good enough in the eyes of someone that was never there or your up a creek. In the military you are trained to act in the civilian world you are expected to think then react to stimuli. The miliseconds between the two methods can have several possible outcomes but two that come to mind off hand is you act and someone else thinks after the fact you acted to harshly or you think about a given situation and how to react to it and by the time a decision is made that you hope the powers that be will agree with you've been shot beaten or worse. Needless to say the rules of engagement in the civilian world are lousy at best and learning and acting in manner other than that the so called mainstream disagree with can be well damaging at the least. I personally don't think there should be a difference in how you should deal with a thug in Florida vs [an enemy] in the sand box because they both can kill you just as dead but I'm in the minority.

[ltc444]

Self defense is combat. The combat techniques used in self defense are the same you would use in a recon situation. You use stealth, camouflage, avoid engaging the enemy and use your weapon as a last resort.

When you engage your enemy, it is a last resort and you use the most effective technique which will preserve your life and allow you to extricate your self from the danger zone.

[Edward429451]

I agree self defense is combat. It sux not being able to call in support, but when the elephant appears then all bets are off and its all out war until the threat is neutralized. The caveat is that us civilians are under the microscope and grunts have immunity. So we have to be extra good and be able to walk away without a shot fired. Maybe. If you can without dieing. It's only survival and not ego.

[kraigwy]

SD vs Combat = Offense vs. Defense

[Nanuk]

I agree with ITC, SD IS combat. Maybe it is the rules of engagement that has you confused.

Too violent for civilian use? I guess you have never seen street crime. What gets people in trouble in the civilian world is to continue using force after the BG has been subdued.

[Glenn Dee]

Again IMO Kraigway hits the mark dead on. There is a difference between self defense and combat.

No one in the civil world including the police is in combat. Combat IMO is the domain of our military. While a citizen or a police officer may find himself fighting for his life... it's not combat. A citizen or the police may find himself under superior fire... it's still not combat.

A citizen is responsible to the local criminal law, and his own concience.
The solder is responsible to the UCMJ, his chain of command, and his own honor.

[Frank Ettin]

And I agree with Kraig and Glenn.

Self defense and combat might both call on some of the same basic skills and have some superficially similar attributes. But --

[1] The rules of engagement are very different. This is of considerable importance, because outside of a combat environment if one applies combat oriented rules of engagement, he is very unlikely to be happy with the legal outcome.

[2] And the objectives could be difference. In combat, the objective may be one of several things, including to gain territory, hold territory, or remove a hostile force from a location. In self defense, the objective is to stop an assault when necessary to prevent immediate harm to an innocent.

Originally Posted by CountryUgly

....I personally don't think there should be a difference in how you should deal with a thug in Florida vs [an enemy] in the sand box ...

You might think that, but that is most assuredly not the case. In our every day world, if you intentionally hurt or kill another human under circumstances in which your act of violence does not satisfy the requirements to be legally justified, you're no longer a "good guy"; you have become a criminal.

[Lee Lapin]

In the world of the armed citizen, the best rule of thumb is ADEE - avoid, de-escalate, disengage, escape, evade. Your situational awareness and ability to spot trouble in advance and avoid it - a major combat skill - is still critical.

You ADEE as much as possible.

But when someone brings it to you in spite of your best efforts and you can't avoid it, then it's on. You don't get to START it, but you'd better be fully prepared to FINISH it -- up to the point your attacker disengages, surrenders or is rendered incapable of further attack.

Legitimate self defense ends when your assailant's capacity or will to attack ends...

Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Vi.../dp/1594391181 and see if it helps. Don't worry too much about the 'martial arts' in the title, it's the real world violence stuff that counts. Or see his blog at http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/ . Stuff like this:

Any sport is a contest designed to test like against like and to measure the things we value as a species. So sport measures strength and speed and endurance (just like any animals trying to win a herd of females) and certain elements of thought. It does not measure and specifically forbids finding out who can go murderous quickest, who has least social conditioning, who can cheat first and hardest... All things incredibly valuable in every other type of physical conflict.

[SWglockmagnum]

yeah, my mind tends to be a little more extreme than necessity too sometimes.

[icedog88]

The caveat is that us civilians are under the microscope and grunts have immunity.

Oh really? Tell that to the soldiers and Marines that have been prosecuted for bad kills. Rules of engagement, the UCMJ, and the Geneva Conventions are ALL looked at in after action reports and debriefing.

Self defense is NOT combat. Self defense in civilian life rarely lasts longer than 2 hr fire fights and usually doesn't involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds.

[Dwight55]

Each of us will have a different "perception" of the terms SD and Combat, I think. AND, . . . that perception is based upon our training, experience, and level of proficiency.

As I go about my life, all is cool until the threat comes, whether it is an ambush, robbing, mugging, a wild jihadi, or any other individual/group who threaten my safety: when it starts, I immediately go into SD mode.

SD mode to me is doing "whatever it takes" for the moment to remove or neutralize that threat. I have run away. I have gone into another room. I have fired a warning shot (only once, . . . a looooong time ago). I have given the robber enough to satisfy him and get me loose. I have grabbed my opponent by the ears and beat his face into a telephone pole.

It remains SD for me until I have gotten to the place where I can now make an intelligent decision: do I want to escalate this to combat? If the answer is "YES", then whatever close and/or appropriate weapon I can get is brought to bear, . . . no quarter given, . . . and I will continue in combat mode until that threat is totally neutralized.

The definition of the neutralized threat is the difference I see between civilian SD and military combat. SD situations only concern now, today, here, and this particular bg or set of bg's. If they detach and depart, . . . I am a good witness and away they go. In a military combat situation, any and all who ID themselves by their actions as my adversary: clean em up, put em down, secure the area from all holstiles.

Just an old condger's thoughts.

May God bless,
Dwight

[Archer 9505]

Similar Skill sets, however:
Combat is war; pushing forward seeking contact with an enemy so that they can be destroyed.

A major part of SD is avoiding violent encounters if at all possible. The use of deadly force in "SD" is when no other reasonable action will abate the threat.

In combat deadly force often is the desired effect, sought out, not avoided. If in combat a US sniper makes an 800 yard kill of an enemy combatant who is trying to place a roadside bomb, its a "Good" kill. The sniper didn't warn off the combatant in an effort to stop the threatening behavior. The sniper killed him, thus ensuring that there is now one less bomber and his surviving buddies are well aware that endangering American lives can cost you yours. There is no legal civilian "SD" version of this.

[Double Naught Spy]

SD vs Combat = Offense vs. Defense

Combat is war; pushing forward seeking contact with an enemy so that they can be destroyed.

So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalation forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?

No one in the civil world including the police is in combat. Combat IMO is the domain of our military. While a citizen or a police officer may find himself fighting for his life... it's not combat. A citizen or the police may find himself under superior fire... it's still not combat.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that combat is military on military fighting but a civilian in the middle of the fighting isn't in combat? I understand that the civilian may not be a combatant, but you seem to say that the civilian would not be in combat.

Self defense is NOT combat. Self defense in civilian life rarely lasts longer than 2 hr fire fights and usually doesn't involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds.

Of course, the Indian Campaigns of the 1800s didn't often involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds and there are numerous accounts of prolonged attempted seiges of civilians by the Native Americans during the period of these conflicts. I don't think technology and length of engagement are defining attributes of one versus the other.

So going with the notion of "combat" being a military activity, I started search a variety of military sites for a proper definition from various US and British military groups on their respective websites and in online guides. The term of "combat" is ubiquituous and stated as a term in no need of defintion, but usually referring to conflict (physical fighting) between opposing forces where conflict can be in the form of direct contact fighting such as occurred in the Battle of Iwo Jima, or just long range exchanges. However, the exchange of force isn't a deciding factor either as soldiers may be injured or killed in combat when they have come under attack but do not or cannot respond to the attackers. For example, a US destroyer sunk by torpedo in WWII from a Japanese submarine resulted in seamen killed or injured "in combat" despite never having performed any action against the submarine or even knowing where the submarine was that torpedoed the ship.

Without specific definition, the use of the term "combat" in military texts seems quite broad in what it covers.

[icedog88]

Double Naught Spy,
So by your reasoning, when a parent smacks a child's behind, that's combat?

[Archer 9505]

So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalition forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?

No, that's not exactly my meaning. I am referring to a distinction between the killing that takes place in war and the application of deadly force in self defense. In SD the goal is never to kill, the goal is to use the minimal force necessary to stop the threat. An unintended consequence of stopping the threat may be the death of the aggressor. To continue to use force after the threat has ended is excessive. In war often (not always) the objective is to kill the enemy. At the time of their death they may not have been doing anything overtly hostile but were still legitimate targets of war. Drone strikes, JDAM's and sniper shots among other tools of war are intended not just to stop aggressive behavior but to kill.

There is a broad chasm between what is "Legal" in war and what is legal in SD.
Pop Quiz: Tape a few claymores to 55 gallon drums of napalm , emplace them around the perimeter of your property then touch 'em off when your dog starts barking.
Question: Is this appropriate behavior for "Combat" (as in war) or "SD" as in the judicious application of the deadly force continuum to stop a reasonably perceived threat?

In the opening post, I don't think the OP was looking for a semantic debate over the dictionary definitions of "Combat" VS "SD". Correct me if I am wrong, but what I got from his post was that he had been trained for war and wanted to discuss the distinction between War and SD outside the context of war.

The Dictionary definition of "Combat" is so vague

1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously:

that it can be applied to either situation of "SD or "War". But I think I understood the OP's intention was to use the term "Combat" to refer to war.

[Edward429451]

That would be stretching it too thin. Combat is more of a state of mind than it is the notion of are you military or civilian. If you want to live, you go on the offense mentally. It works in Chess, it works on the street, it works on campaign.

Somebody pulls a knife on you. You draw your gun. Of course you are defending yourself. How did you not just go offensive on him?

The best defense is a good offense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Edward429451

...The best defense is a good offense.

Unless of course the jury finds that your "offense" was not in justified response to an immediate threat. Now you were the aggressor, and you will be the one going to jail.

Some folks prefer to think of themselves "in combat." Gosh, that sounds so much more manly and edgy.

But the differences in rules of engagement and objective are critical legally and need to be understood and respected.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well icedog88, that would not be my reasoning at all. That would be more in line with the reasoning that combat is offensive whereas self defense is defensive which is a perspective that I was questioning.

No, that's not exactly my meaning. I am referring to a distinction between the killing that takes place in war and the application of deadly force in self defense. In SD the goal is never to kill, the goal is to use the minimal force necessary to stop the threat.

That is a perspective on self defense that we have as a pro-gun group of people who are trying hard to not lose guns to the alarmist liberals, but outside our context, the context of self defense isn't always to just stop the threat.

Drone strikes, JDAM's and sniper shots among other tools of war are intended not just to stop aggressive behavior but to kill.

Tools of war? You mean like firearms? I think you are confusing design and application. Take sniper shots. The design of the sniper program is to develop highly skiled shooters who can deliver a projectile on target at range, often in a clandestine manner (amongst all sorts of other duties outside of shooting). Often is the case that the role of the sniper shot is not to kill, but to stop, inclusive of targets to be stopped including vehicles, aircraft, rockets, as well as people and groups of people.

JDAMs are designed to kill? Not hardly. The JDAM system was develop for the purpose of being able to make aerial dropped munitions more accurate. That application can be put to use in killing or put to use in making roads, runways, bridges, etc. impassable. The same with drone strikes.

But I think I understood the OP's intention was to use the term "Combat" to refer to war.

Really? I didn't get that at all. In fact, I thought it was rather ambiguous and so I questioned it. Of course, Nate has not opted to participate further in the thread he started.

But the differences in rules of engagement and objective are critical legally and need to be understood and respected.

Absolutely, and those rules are apt to be very different in how they are perceived or applied depending upon where you are in the world, time period, societal norms, etc.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Absolutely, and those rules are apt to be very different in how they are perceived or applied depending upon where you are in the world, time period, societal norms, etc.

On the other hand, we're here, and this is now.

[icedog88]

I do agree with Archer 9505 that this has become more semantic than the spirit of the thread. I took it to mean civilian vs militarily in war.

Well icedog88, that would not be my reasoning at all. That would be more in line with the reasoning that combat is offensive whereas self defense is defensive which is a perspective that I was questioning.

Well, based on the loose definition that you gave

referring to conflict (physical fighting) between opposing forces where conflict can be in the form of direct contact fighting

or cannot respond to the attackers.

Seems like every spanking I ever saw.


Without specific definition, the use of the term "combat" in military texts seems quite broad in what it covers.

It is. But inferring what I thought to be the spirit of the thread, I and others were giving a perceived mindset as opposed to definition. I didn't think nate45 was looking for definitions.

[Maximus856]

I'm having flashbacks of "no its not an assualt weapon, it's an AR15."

Drone strikes, JDAM's and sniper shots among other tools of war are intended not just to stop aggressive behavior but to kill.

They certainly aren't designed for hitting random people for doing nothing now, are they? There's a reason why both sides in war are called 'aggressors.' And just to split the hair a bit more, don't you carry your weapon to kill? IE. Stop the aggresive behavior with a bullet? If you are carrying it to wound or flash around then there needs to be some reevaluation.

Anyway, back on topic with combat vs. self defense. The two things they have in common is situational awareness and the old saying of 'situation dictates.' Caught in the open? Find cover. Overwhelmed? Retreat. Caught offguard? Reread the first of the two I listed.

The last thing is having a mindset to win no matter what. So no, you don't have air cover, and you don't have forces on reserve (unless you want to consider LE for that), but you do need the same mindset. Not neccesarily the same rules, but certainly the will to survive. For anyone who thinks there hands are above 'less than lethal,' I dont understand how that wouldnt be ok and carrying a weapon would be Too extreme? Short of handcuffing the guy and bringing him back to your basement for tortue, I don't think theres much that a 'highly trained' person can be accused with. Unless of course you're an Army Ranger named Nicholas Cage who is attacked by guys outside of a bar