Protect the attacker OR let him fall on his own sword?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Anjisan]

I am posing this question because it has long intrigued me. Specifically, when attacked is your philosophical take to protect the attacker from harm, in essence as O'senesi stated, to treat the attacker like an out of control child or do you allow the events to unfold and permit the attackers end to be of his own making or in other words if he attacks easy he goes down easy, but if not.................? How much responsibility do you take during the interaction for the attackers safety and when does that--to whatever degree--begin? Does it begin only after your own safety or that of the innocent is assured or from the beginning? Given that most conflict interactions are going to be short in duration, over in possibly just a few moves, it certainly does not give one much time do decide or change course mid-stream. Also, to what degree does the nature of the attacker factor into the equation such as the drunk at the bar as opposed to a pre-mediated attacker in the parking lot or home invasion? Is your philosophical take more of a case by case basis or an overall approach?

[lifeafter2am]

Philosophy: I would love to cause as little harm as possible to stop the attack. If that means just a few quick throws, great, if that means breaking something, well than it happens. Now I wouldn't let him "fall on his own sword", but I am going to protect myself first. Because I hate fighting in the first place, so I know that I didn't start it. :)

Real World: I would love to say what I would actually do, but I don't know. I haven't been in a bad enough situation to ever find out, and I hope that I never am. A lot of it would depend on the situation, I would definitely try harder to cause less harm to a staggering drunk than a sober person outside the bar trying to stab me.

In all situations you should have a respect for human life though, not everyone might agree with me, but that comes from my training and education in Buddhism. :)

[L. Camejo]

How much responsibility do you take during the interaction for the attackers safety and when does that--to whatever degree--begin?Your philosophy will be determined by your ability imho. One cannot take responsibility for another's well being if one does not yet have control over one's own. It really does not matter too much who the attacker is, but what you are capable of doing as well as what you are willing to do to put an end to the conflict. Many talk about protection of the attacker. Imho very few can realistically protect the self, much less the attacker when something goes wrong. Your ability and the situation will determine the answer imho.

Train hard, train with purpose, evaluate often.

Gambatte.
LC:ai::ki:

[Aristeia]

you can only treat your attacker as an out of control child, if the differential in skill ability and physicality is the same as it is between you and a child. Otherwise there is significant risk involved and that risk should always lie with the agressor.

[Amir Krause]

Philosophy: I would love to cause as little harm as possible to stop the attack. If that means just a few quick throws, great, if that means breaking something, well than it happens. Now I wouldn't let him "fall on his own sword", but I am going to protect myself first. Because I hate fighting in the first place, so I know that I didn't start it. :)

Real World: I would love to say what I would actually do, but I don't know. I haven't been in a bad enough situation to ever find out, and I hope that I never am. A lot of it would depend on the situation, I would definitely try harder to cause less harm to a staggering drunk than a sober person outside the bar trying to stab me.

In all situations you should have a respect for human life though, not everyone might agree with me, but that comes from my training and education in Buddhism. :)

The best way to protect the attacker, would have been to let him do with you as he wishes. I assume most here agree this is not their wish, and they do have a preference for the preservation of self and loved ones, before their attacker.

Thus, the level of protection one would give an attacker, depends primarily on the situation:
The attackers are not the same: A child out of control does not equal a rape\murder attempt ...
The defender capability varies: Each has his own skill, his own size and his own momentary level of concentration ...
The situation varies: Do you have friends around? Would a fall stop this attacker at all or will he just come back at you? Do you have a mission (L.E. \security for example)?

A friend in the Dojo was once attacked by his neighbor who lost control. He was in shape and rather skilled in Aikido, the neighbor was not. And he is a very gentle person. So he let the neighbor attack him again and again and again, while he only stoped out of te attacks, for a few minutes. The neighbor lost his breath and stopped. He won.
He did take a significant risk for that victory, I am not sure I would have dared to act the same way.

Amir

[statisticool]

Is your philosophical take more of a case by case basis or an overall approach?

To me it is all about health defense; practicing a martial art for physial and mental health benefits. This umbrella term includes self defense, since a fist, a foot, a choke, a weapon, etc., landing upon you subtracts from your health.

Higher level and more ethical martial arts, in my opinion, emphasize health defense, and the defender using as little force as possible to 'get the job done', which includes situation avoidance and running away.

Coincidentally, these approaches preclude sport/entertainment fights, those who go looking for fights, and martial arts who focus on generating more and more force (which will always dwindle with age).

[Nafis Zahir]

I am posing this question because it has long intrigued me. Specifically, when attacked is your philosophical take to protect the attacker from harm, in essence as O'senesi stated, to treat the attacker like an out of control child or do you allow the events to unfold and permit the attackers end to be of his own making or in other words if he attacks easy he goes down easy, but if not.................? How much responsibility do you take during the interaction for the attackers safety and when does that--to whatever degree--begin? Does it begin only after your own safety or that of the innocent is assured or from the beginning? Given that most conflict interactions are going to be short in duration, over in possibly just a few moves, it certainly does not give one much time do decide or change course mid-stream. Also, to what degree does the nature of the attacker factor into the equation such as the drunk at the bar as opposed to a pre-mediated attacker in the parking lot or home invasion? Is your philosophical take more of a case by case basis or an overall approach?

In the dojo, I feel very much responsible for the safety of my training partner. They put their trust in me, and I in them. But on the street, the undoing of an attacker is of his own accord. My goal is to protect myself. His protection is his own responsibility, and the best way for him to achieve that goal is not to attack at all. As for the drunk,he is still responsible for his actions and therefore the outcome is also of his own doing.

[APER]

On the street the best defense is not fighting..but if I do fight, I would have no regard to their safety..

[Mark Uttech]

It is a good question. You have to ask yourself how important the answer is to you. Part of the answer is why we train. A lot of us train to explore our options.

In gassho

Mark

[Luc X Saroufim]

unless you're comfortable in fighting situations, i believe philosophy and talent aren't used to their fullest potentional. an unskilled fighter has 20/20 hindsight.

[Rupert Atkinson]

First of all, in order to 'spare' the attacker you have to have the ability to defeat him - whatever that means. So, that's why we train. Policemen do this all the time. They ARREST people. They don't parry a punch and then obliterate them like some madman on a battlefield (unless they are one of those US Cops that empty their entire magazine into an unarmed man).

[jennifer paige smith]

Neutralize the attack, not the attacker.

[gdandscompserv]

Neutralize the attack, not the attacker.
Are they seperable?

[jennifer paige smith]

Are they seperable?

Yes.

[Lyle Bogin]

Most violence I face I MUST protect the attacker, since it is usually one of my students (I work in a special ed school that serves the kids from the projects in Brooklyn).

Protect the attacker to protect yourself.

[Anjisan]

So, if we are not obligated to protect those that agress against us, then is there a philisophical difference that sets Aikido practicioners apart from other martial arts other than the fact that it is a defensive art? If we are not bound by a higher code than why not Aiki jutsu--what is the difference? Are we obligated--as you intrpret O Sensei's or your own sensei's interpretation--to use the minimum force necessary to terminate the attack OR if they attack hard is one well within his or her rights to let them hit the concrete as hard as they have dictated with their attack?

[Joseph Madden]

In the dojo, most definitely protect your attacker (or uke). In the street,
it would depend entirely on the situation and how much control you would have to use on the attacker. Does he/she have a knife, pipe, brick? Do they want to kill you? How skilled are you? Will you have to physically harm them (perhaps permanently)? These are the variables law enforcement officials are trained to deal with everyday and sometimes they hesitate and it cost them. It all depends on what degree you place your own survival against someone elses.

Osu