Defence or Overkill?

What if your training works in self-defence — but so well that you land in legal hot water?

Could the techniques you train in be seen as overkill in court?

In this column last issue, I posed the question: what if your self-defence training did work in a confrontation — but it worked all too well?
Serious and unnecessary harm to another individual in the heat of the moment can have life-altering consequences for you as well as the victim. I’ve seen this happen first-hand with others.
Now, I’m sure some who teach ‘true’ self-defence do emphasise this point, or something like it (of course, that’s ‘true’ self-defence in my opinion). It’s just something you don’t commonly see.
Part of the problem is that we have these three loose groupings of systems or schools that teach martial arts, combat sports and self-defence/defensive tactics respectively, and the distinction between them is sometimes weak.
So there is a wash-over in techniques and attitudes between these groups that doesn’t take into account the fact that they each have different purposes, which sometimes conflict. So, for example, the overriding consideration in both the martial arts and combat sports is to hit hard, fast and with accuracy to key points on the body that do maximum damage and/or score points (I am generalising here). But is that the best thing in self-defence?
The pre-occupation in self-defence should be to only hit as hard and fast against a point on the body as is appropriate to the situation, if at all. In the more extreme circumstances, that means you will try to hit them into next week. But in everyday life for you and me, such extreme situations are rare. It’s far more common to find yourself involved in an altercation over a matter that is not worth fighting for, and certainly not ending up in court over. The desire to hit someone very hard has more to do with ego, pride and testosterone than common sense.
I would therefore like to suggest that one of the many technical points of differentiation between defensive tactics systems (my preferred term for self-defence systems) and the other two groupings of martial arts and combat sports is on this point. In a martial art a ‘good’ strike is whatever the system says is a good strike, judged by criteria that system has created, whether connected to reality or not. In combat sports, a good strike is one that scores points or catches the judge’s eye, wears the opponent down to enable a finish, or knocks him out.
In defensive tactics, a good strike is one that helps you attain some tactical goal towards extricating yourself from the altercation, and is appropriate in its severity. I can do a strike that is as ugly as some breeds of dog and would score zip in a contest, but if it helps me save my backside now and in court afterwards, then it is of value. Hitting hard per se is a secondary consideration; hitting smart, if at all, is first.
So, in teaching self-defence I emphasize this dynamic — in striking you have three variables to play with to make it suit your circumstances: the target you choose, the weapon you chose and the degree of force you apply.
In finding yourself in some silly argument (say, over a parking space), executing an elbow-strike to the head of the other guy would be a very bad idea. It looks aggressive, appears to have intent to cause the other person serious harm and is a disproportionate use of the force, given the situation. There is also the danger of the other person falling and striking his head against the ground. Even if he does threaten to whack you into next week, you can be sure that in court, you will go up for assault. And you cannot guarantee that any witnesses will have clearly heard the threat and back your version of events.
If you feel you have to hit to the head, an open palm-strike would be a better option or, if you are sticking with an elbow, then make it to the upper body or chest area to facilitate a stun. And either strike must be loaded with only an appropriate level of force. I think you get the drift. Remember, unlike the technique photo sequences you see in this magazine, real situations do not end at the last photo. Bet on the fact that there may be consequences or an aftermath for your actions.

Graham Kuerschner is a 41-year veteran of the martial arts and an instructor in six systems. He can be contacted through his website at www.sdtactics.com.au.