Interceptions are the first part of a coordinated response to an attack: one that negates the particular attack and neutralises the potential for any follow-up ones. The idea that this is how traditional martial arts are designed to work is a myth - one that I've previously dispelled, I believe very conclusively. "Block" also seems to imply "no counter" (at least, to some folks). While "block" is often misunderstood to imply some sort of "waiting", the term "interception" shouldn't (although people are still managing to surprise me - particularly when they realise that by this term I mean something other than " attack, attack, attack!"). I can tell you something: there is no easier way for your attacker to "reorbit" his arm and "recover a knife" than if you're unconscious on the ground - all because you didn't intercept that first attack!Īnd of course, there is also that assumption again - that interception somehow involves "waiting"! As I said to Tom, this is what I most like about the term "interception": it avoids any misrepresentation of civilian defence arts as "waiting" for anything. I am an 82nd AirBorne Ranger - no time for them to try to strike or wait for counter." But defang the snake - take out the teeth - can the snake hit ? Just for a point of view: I have a son. My arm can now reorbit, recover a knife you did not know of and now a dagger is now in play. OK, now you block like a forearm say for point. They want to rely on the mantra that "offence is the best defence". What I think Nelson and others have a problem with is acknowledging the necessity of defensive skill: skill in such things as interception and evasion. The non-obvious ones? Well, there's a reason we can't have a formula for them, isn't there? It's precisely because they aren't obvious! So the law probably authorises pre-emption in obvious cases anyway. Furthermore, if they are carrying a knife, then usually all bets are off you might well be able to do whatever it is you need to do - including using lethal force (check your own jurisdictions laws don't take this as legal advice!). If you think about it, the difference is huge.Īs I previously noted, in many Western countries having someone walking into your personal space in a threatening manner can constitute an assault in itself. Yes, civilian defence proceeds on the assumption that you've been attacked - but it does not proceed on the assumption that this is because you've waited for that attack. No civilian defence art I've studied envisages doing so. That is a common response the moment I speak of "interceptions" of attacks. That's what comes of trying to apply any "formula" to our complex social interaction.īut, more than anything else, I don't ever recall saying anyone should "give your opponent the first shot". Try to apply it dogmatically and you might find it actually results in grievous and needless tragedy. As comforting as it might be to espouse such a "formula", it's applicability is fraught with grey edges. But pre-empting automatically just because you have a "doubt"? I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to any such "formula". Sure, you should pre-empt an impending attack when the circumstances require it. You have to take every case as it comes and judge it as best you can. But I made the best choice I could in the circumstances. Did I have doubts about whether I'd got it right? You bet. I made a judgment call not to strike out. I simply assessed each case as it presented itself. Please note: I didn't "wait" because of some formula of "letting him have the first shot". There are so many times in my life where I could have simply "struck out" but didn't - only to have the situation resolved peacefully and far more beneficially (for me and everyone else). Do you strike out automatically? Again, how hard and in what way? So a troubled teenager walks up to you in a threatening manner: do you "strike out"? If so, how hard? What kind of strike? So a man who is clearly grieving or otherwise upset by some tragedy misunderstands something you say and walks up angrily to you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |