View Full Version : Not one Self Defense Style to Stop Treacherous Attacks.

March 11, 2000, 05:43 AM
I titled the subject "Not One Kind of Self Defense Style to Stop Treacherous Attacks".

Why did I say like this, I just want to tell to everyone that no matter how excellent a particular defense style we have studied if we are attack on our side, behind, or there is a sudden attacked on us that we are not expecting. For sure we are defenseless. If that moment the attacker use a knife, or gun we could only strike back if we were not paralyzed or we are still conscious to return fire or blows to the attacker.

Many don't accept that there is no defense for a determined attack by treachery.

The BG is also practicing whatever is practiced by any one of us. Whoever practice good sighting, center mass etc, the BG does too. So, can we say, we we have learned the best style of martial arts, or have the best guns, ammo for self defense?

We are just talking for real to learn from each one of us to know what is really to be known, to avoid being a victim.


March 11, 2000, 12:30 PM
Ever see the movie "The Seven Samurai"? There is a part where some of the villagers are testing probable recruits to their cause by leading them through an archway where an attacker is waiting. The responses are varied, from an immediate reaction to an attack that has already happened - to one samurai who stops just short of going through the archway saying "please.. no tricks". Ive known guys in real life who had this awareness, most of us do if we would only un bury it. It is amazing to me that more people arent victims when I see the fog they walk around in - oblivious. There are no
self defense forms I know of that will stop a treacherous attack recognized too late. Being aware will not stop the attack, it may keep it from even beginning.

March 11, 2000, 07:40 PM
Martial artists benefit from the four conditions as well as shooters- they/we should be in condition yellow or orange as appropriate.

Bruce Lee in white is an easy target- I finally got a martail art buddy of mine to admit this. :)


March 12, 2000, 12:11 AM
Zensho & Erik: Thanks for the comments and your personal analysis to treacherous attacks and how easy to deploy such attack if an attacker is determined.

History proves itself.

We all know that the intelligence of the allied forces is so vast around the world but then the Japanese were able to bomb pearl harbor by treachery and with all the defenses thereon were not able to defend pearl harbor being devastated.

Another modern history is, when the FBI was able to discover that there was a mole in their organization " I just remember part of the name, I think that is "AMES", I consider this as an attack to them also.

Also, if you remember the Kamikaze bomber, the defenses of the carrier is too sophisticated but still the Kamikaze is able to bomb directly or hit the center of the carrier.

What was the lesson from these events. It is determination, readiness and a commitment to deploy such acts and there is no such formidable defense.

I compare the above to the "Martial Arts and Gun Defensive Teachings". They are just a part of human activities to develop a person to be more capable in dealing such danger but not a solution that we can escape nor defend completely a particular attack from a determined perpetrator who will employ it by treachery.

In holdup that I was a victim, I also experienced of having not used any single strike for they the holdupper have applied their tactics of just emerging on your side or at the back by surprised and their knives or guns were already pointed at you. I also, experienced being held up that I capture the holdupper because I am in a position to fight him face to face. I experience that I am about to be held up but I just move fast to get away from the holdupper because I sense that he will victimized me. I prefer in moving out fast rather then facing the holupper squarely for there is still a room to escape.

So, sometimes - awareness and be attentive to your sorroundings is sometimes better - for if we sense there is danger then we get out from that area.

I still believe that all attacks employed by anyone is done by treachery if he/she wants to win. In a more acceptable language they just called it tactical or techniques perhaps.


Gopher a 45
March 12, 2000, 01:49 AM
Bruce Lee recognized as well the fact that there is no defednse against an unexpected attack, which is why he stressed not finding oneself in condition white if at all possible. :) For more on this, you might want to check out "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do" and "Bruce Lee's Fighting Method." Of course no one can be prepared 100% of the time, but you can minimize your exposure. The Seven Samurai was a great movie, by the way. Toshiro Mifune as the lout who fails the "test" in spectacular fashion was priceless.

March 12, 2000, 01:36 PM
It is amazing that martial arts types have figured this all out. Shooters think you will jump into a modified weaver stance or a speed rock, get a flash sight picture, crush grip and do a double tap and win.
With figures showing 88% of cops die with their gun in the holster the problem is pretty obvious.
Gopher is right on the money about not being in a situation where you can be a victim. We have a simple system we teach students. And it has to be simple to work for most of us.
Hands, distance and barriers. And they have to be in place BEFORE the attack. Few students of self defense switch to that mode at a hint of trouble. In fact, cops love to get close which leads to their downfall. I'd rather raise my voice from BEHIND something and watch their hands. A convicted cop killer said it best. " If you give me an opportunity to kill you it is my decision if I do it or not. You have nothing to say about it." Hate those words of widsom.

Edmund Rowe
March 12, 2000, 09:03 PM
Hmmm. I'm going to talk about 3 parts of an enemy:
-His Cunning
-His Determination
-His skill

In my mind, the enemy can be some, all, or none of these.

If he's determined but not skilled or cunning, of course he's dangerous but not subtle at all. Historical aside: The kamikaze example. Very dangerous to the US Navy in WW2, but nothing of cruiser size or larger was sunk by a kamikaze. Damaged, yes. Sunk, no. Off Okinawa the picket radar destroyers had a problem by being often alone and the closest to the attacking waves of aircraft. So much so that one sailor, disgusted with all the attacks on their destroyer, painted a large arrow with the sign "CARRIERS THAT WAY". In my mind the attacks on the outpost destroyers shows a lack of cunning. Obviously the carriers and transports are the most important targets. Skill? I doubt the kamikaze pilots were given much training. After all, they're going on a one-way missions!

Pearl Harbor is a great example of being outwitted. Apparently those in command looked at what was LIKELY instead of what was POSSIBLE. Nobody ever launched such a surprise attack via multi-carrier task force before and we'll get a declaration of war in advance, right? Survey says, BUZZZ! (actually, Taranto 1940 in Italy was a model for the surprise carrier attack).

Back to our discussion:

If the enemy is skilled but not determined or cunning, I'd think he'd be easy to sucker or outwit or even outfight.

If the enemy is cunning, IMHO he doesn't have to be skilled and only needs a moderate dose of determination. One good blindside and WHAMMO you're outta there as the umpires say. This is the most dangerous factor. Cunning needs to be right up there with alertness in priority. Outmaneuvering the bad guys so they don't get you cornered might win the battle without a fight.

But Cunning also has to apply to friendlys. How reliable is that buddy of yours?? Is he going to run for it at the first sign of trouble? Not a bad plan if you both already decided to do that. If I decided to fight and my buddy runs, whoops, where's my backup??

One of my friends lived in Yemen back in the 70's or something. He described Yemeni revenge: Just blasting someone with an AK was considered of no great skill. Yemenis considered the highest form of revenge was to befriend the guy, and 20 years later during a Yemeni greeting hug with both arms encircling, the treacherous one pulls a knife from his sleeve and rips the other guys back open. Now THAT's what I call treachery!! Only defense against that would be 20 years of vigilance of who your friends really are.

Hope that makes sense.


Gopher a 45
March 13, 2000, 01:27 AM
What's the most precious thing in a self-defense situation? I maintain that it is time, not the best carry rig, tac-light, etc. because even the best equiptment still takes time to employ. The whole purpose behind awareness, to me, is to give you the time to respond. I mean, we're all aware how a knife-wielding BG within a certain distance can beat a draw and kill you, etc. You can train to be as fast as you want, but if you don't maintain enough awareness to give you that minimum amount of time, you're screwed. PlusP, the lesson is not that common in the MA community. Most MAs have a mindset like you described for shooters. "If I get into it, I'll throw a quick side kick, followed by a quick elbow, etc." But again, if someone lunges out of nowhere, they've already made those excellent kicks ineffective. Those words of wisdom apply! But, we can learn from them as well. I know that the disadvantages of concealed carry are a longer time to employ a weapon, so I have to factor that in by trying to survey a situation ahead before I get there, such as going out to the car at night, not fumbling with keys, etc. Unfortunately BGs know this too, which is why I agree with Edmund that cunning is by far the most dangerous attribute of an opponent. You couldn't pay me enough to be on a picket destroyer off Okinawa. Those guys took it on the chin. You're right that they were the first ships to be seen by the Kamikazes. They also didn't have CAP protection, since the CAP's job is to protect the CVs. Bad situation for the tin can guys all the way around. The funny thing about Pearl is that it did put the "let's focus on what is possible instead of likely" mentality into the navy with a vengance. In fact, if that mentality had prevailed, we probably would have lost the battle of Midway, since there was considerable sentiment that the Japanese target may have been Hawaii or the West Coast, in spite of all that excellent codebreaking. Nimitz quashed that idea, and the rest is history. Walter Lord's "Incredible Victory" is an excellent book on this subject and even mentions that fact that Nimitz considered what was likely was more important than what was theoretically possible. I guess it shows that you can take both philosophies too far. I think maybe WE had a lack of cunning, since there seemed (in retrospect) to be a lot of warning signs that could have tipped us off, if not for all the denial at the highest levels. I would try not to count on a buddy, since you don't KNOW up until a situation how another person will react until it happens. Heck, probably nobody knows how they themselves will react until something happens. I guess another person is just a variable I'd rather not have to account for unless necessary.

March 13, 2000, 05:36 AM
I am reading all your post and it all affirms to the concept in employing a) skill, b) determination, c) Awareness and d) Cunningness.

· For me, cunningness and treachery are good weapon if we want our objective to be materialized. Of course I presumed that everyone are skilled in their own way to put into application of what they know as an art. A guy is not a black belt but good in knife handling so, he has the skill of a knife and his choosen weapon is a knife. The same to the pistolero, although he is not good in hand-to-hand combat but he is skilled in hand-gun so his choice is a gun.

· With the example of Edmund about the Yemeni is good demonstration of cunningness (cleverness or craftiness) or treachery to accomplish an objective.

· Is ambush to an enemy called treachery or cleverness? This is an old way of tactics use by military or civilian of whatever use. And on this tactics non is well trained to escaped from it, the one who ambushed might not all wiped the target but inflict big damage. In the street, if done by a common BG to ambush its’ prey then for sure the ambusher can do great damage to the ambushed even in the end the person or group ambushed can recover but they suffer casualty. In the military usually if ambushed was done, everybody dive or prone on the ground and shoot back or move fast , but still not a 100% solution to self defense. Maybe, an ambush is also an skill to whoever may do it against an enemy and this also done by the BG. This can be applied to martial arts player or to an individual shooter.

· Also, not only on the street where an attack will be done on the rear but also this is an old tactics of the military to attack on the enemy rear sometimes or to an area where the enemy is not expecting. All of these are good examples to consider on our individual defense awareness on the street.

· Showing Friendliness and being weak to an enemy or agressor is sometimes a way of taking advantage to an enemy and we might call it a practical skill to learn. Well, there were times also that showing weakness, the more an enemy or a BG will take advantage but it is a good weapon to a more confrontational situation. Example, someone hold up you and you let them get all your belongings usually they will not hit you, but if you fight back and you don’t have the necessary physical skill against them you will end up to be shot or stab, which one you prefer then? Thus, not all being a martial arts expert or shooter expert can be a good defense in the street. There are more ways to prevent bloody confrontation or defend ourselves.

· I, being so observant to what is happening arround me. Why is it that even there is one person involve in any crime scene, there are many responding officers to go to the area, or a squad of SWAT Team will respond. Can a few of them is enough to control an only one man doing the crime, when in fact they are so called well trained shooters. And mostly if not all the time. The intention of responding officers is shoot to kill the the suspect and most crime ended that way but the root cause of the crime was not solve. The tactics is always blitzkrieg style of Hitler. You kill a fly by cannon bullet. Its an overkill.

To summarize, we need to employ all of the above 4 items i.e., skill, determination, awareness, and cunningness to our individual means of self defense. Not to be too much preoccupied in looking around the best kind of karate, kungfu, bjj, judo, stick fighting and shooting schools etc., for it takes several seconds to launch a bullet or a knife thrust to our target.

Thank you again in exchanging ideas with all of you.

[This message has been edited by stdalire (edited March 13, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by stdalire (edited March 13, 2000).]

March 14, 2000, 10:33 AM
Among the "martial artists," Steven Blauer is noted for his research into the anatomy of fear and reflexes. He also has an instructional tape called "The Anatomy of the Sucker Punch," which deals with surprise attacks. I neither denigrate nor endorse him, but folks who are interested in learning how to deal with surprise attacks may want to check out his material.


For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu

March 14, 2000, 03:03 PM
uummm, his name is Tony Blauer. :)
Peyton Quinn, Geoff Thompson and Marc Macyoung all have books and tapes that deal with "sucker punchers"

Check all of them out if you can, they all have their own perspective.

"JKD is about...discovering the cause of your own ignorance"

March 14, 2000, 05:38 PM
You are absolutely right. It's Tony Blauer. I immediately noticed that I made the mistake after I clicked on "submit reply" and then tried to edit it. Unfortunately, I couldn't because my post wouldn't appear for several minutes.

Thanks for the correction.


For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence. Sun Tzu