In a workshop recently, I had to make a distinction as to
when I would hit someone versus using a joint-lock or pressure point against a
person, or what I called hard self-defence and soft self-defence.
I boiled it down to what the immediate situation called for.
I would employ hard self-defence techniques when I am
physically attacked by one or more aggressors. The tools I would use will
include kicking and punching and any other bodily tools that I have trained to
use, as well as "unattached" weapons such as firearms, knives, batons
and improvised weapons.
However, there are some scenarios where a broken bone or
two, may not necessarily be the most
ideal way to deal with an harasser. It may be “too much force” that could result
in me being liable for his/her injuries. This is when I would employ a more
subtle form of "soft" self-defence such as joint-locks and pressure
points, which may be enough to subdue or deter a harasser.
Note also that I have used different terms, aggressor and harasser,
to describe the “bad guy” when I use either hard or soft self-defence. I have
done this deliberately so as to act as a trigger as to when I should employ the
appropriate techniques.
Which is better?
My suggestion would be to combine both these 'forms' of
self-defence and use what is appropriate at the time.
For example in the case of suddenly being physically
attacked by an aggressor, the immediate response would be to deal with that
situation with some "hard' self-defence techniques (block the aggressor's
strike; counter strike; create distance and access own weapons (if any); move
in to attack aggressor again). Only once the aggressor is subdued and has not fled,
would I employ some "soft" self-defence to either restrain the
aggressor with a joint-lock, or cause him to become unconscious while I get
help or restrain him.
In another example, if I was a female employee and was getting some
unwanted attention from a male colleague at work, I would employ some
"soft" self-defence techniques such as a finger-lock or pain-inducing
pressure point technique so as to deter the harasser from proceeding any
further. It should be noted that in this situation, I would also have to re-enforce
my position of not wanting any of the harasser’s attention by using strong
verbal commands and posturing - more tools and techniques that fall in the
"soft" self-defence category. If however, my attempts are not
successful and the harasser decides to use more force against me (making him
now an aggressor) , I would revert back to "hard' self-defence and strike
him hard.
It is important to note that a person's heart-rate and
ability to control his or her fine motor skills under a high-pressure scenario
is also key as to whether they should employ hard or soft self-defence. Fine
motor skills are vital when trying to employ joint-locks or pressure-point
techniques (soft self-defence) and will deteriorate as one's heart rate
increases.
A person is able to condition themselves to better operate
their fine-motor skills under hear-rate increasing scenarios, with the correct
training.
With the correct training, both hard and soft self-defence techniques
should be employed to potentially hazardous incidents. Furthermore, one’s
ability to be able to distinguish between these types of incidents become
important too, as the age old saying of "one size fits all" would not
work in a court of law if you are found to be using excessive force in an
incident.
To conclude, as your journey in becoming a safety-conscious
member of society who studies practical self-defence techniques to empower
yourself, you must always keep in mind that as you become more proficient in
self-defence, you need to exercise greater self-control when handling an
incident and never abuse your skills and knowledge. If you do, you become no
better than the criminals we wish to weed out of society.
Till next time.
Get EDUCATED. Feel EMPOWERED. Live a FULLY-ENGAGED life.
