Run from an attacker?

My teacher usually points out that you can't retreat as fast as you advance, and that it usually leads to ukes cramming you in multi-man attack so you lose the initiative and get overwhelmed easily. This has been pointed out to me while its been happening, not to mention the eyes on the back of my head not noticing that I'm retreating right into the uke behind me.

Whenever I retreat in Randori even for a step or two it gets real hairy real fast unless there was no one behind me and I can't usually tell.

Maybe its something you can get away when awareness is more developed.

IMHO, enter and blend is not running away from a conflict. Besides, running away can set up a chase mentality in your attacker which will only further facilitate attack.

Einstein said that to type of thinking that creates a problem is never the type of thinking that solves it. Attack is a fear based action. Fight, flight, or freeze are all fear based responses. More of the same thinking. The flow of blending is not fear based. It is a counter without being a counter attack.

Walking away is different than running away and usually happens a lot sooner.

Until again,

Lynn
Nidan Tenshinkai Aikido
Lucaylucay Kali JKD

Originally posted by SeiserL ... Attack is a fear based action.

Lynn,

Please elaborate on this statement and explain what you mean by an attack being 'fear' based?!?!

Regards,

Originally posted by SeiserL IMHO, enter and blend is not running away from a conflict. Besides, running away can set up a chase mentality in your attacker which will only further facilitate attack. Einstein said that to type of thinking that creates a problem is never the type of thinking that solves it. Attack is a fear based action. Fight, flight, or freeze are all fear based responses. More of the same thinking. The flow of blending is not fear based. It is a counter without being a counter attack. Walking away is different than running away and usually happens a lot sooner.

This is a little too absolute for me although I'd probably agree with the general premise. I could see consciously delivering responses of fight or flight in certain situations as very valid. When the Germans came across the border into Poland the Polish people pretty much had to fight. Prior to that a number of countries had attempted to blend with Germany: England and France in regards to the Czech's for instance. It didn't work and it just encouraged Hitler.

On the other end, the USSR had to run when the Germans came over the border. They'd tried to fight and we're slaughtered. You might dispute that and call it blending, I've heard it done, but basically they ran. They didn't have a good clean alternative.

I think WW2 could also be a good example that contradicts and confirms Einstien's comment. First, war did solve the problem of war through war. However, what changed the likelihood of repeating the war was a different approach to reparations from WW1. So different thinking did win out on that one.

Again, I think I generally agree with the premise but I can't accept it as an absolute. I can think of plenty of situations were you can't blend. The classic is when someone else is attacked. You respond and help them. We might not call it an attack but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't call it a blend either because there was nothing to blend with. Non-resistance?

Originally posted by Erik On the other end, the USSR had to run when the Germans came over the border. They'd tried to fight and we're slaughtered.

The Soviet Union was the country who played the largest, by far, role in defeating Germans.

They turned the war around. What are you talking about ?

Originally posted by shihonage The Soviet Union was the country who played the largest, by far, role in defeating Germans. They turned the war around. What are you talking about ?

1941 and a large part of 1942.

Yes, they played a very major part in defeating the Germans.

Retreating does not mean one is giving up. When one knows that one can't win, then one will not engage in a fight where one would die needlessly. Even Musashi admitted this, that's why he was undefeated. This is a strategy that is still widely used even in modern military, especially in modern military. "Live to fight another day".

Stalin's naivity of the non-aggression pact with Hitler was the cause of the destruction started 22 June 1941, operation Barbarossa.

The Russians suffered a great loss caused by Hitler's surprise attack. The Luftwaffe destroyed Russian fighters that is still parked on the runway, Wehrmacht's panzers attacked in blitzkrieg fashion. About 660,000 Russians were killed or captured, about 1/3 of the Red Army.

The Russians did not retreat, they were backtabbed. The counter-offensive was done immediately. With the help of the Russian's Katyusha rockets, the situation was stabilized by April 1942.

Originally posted by Thalib Stalin's naivity of the non-aggression pact with Hitler was the cause of the destruction started 22 June 1941, operation Barbarossa. The Russians suffered a great loss caused by Hitler's surprise attack. The Luftwaffe destroyed Russian fighters that is still parked on the runway, Wehrmacht's panzers attacked in blitzkrieg fashion. About 660,000 Russians were killed or captured, about 1/3 of the Red Army.

Agreed!

The Russians did not retreat, they were backtabbed. The counter-offensive was done immediately. With the help of the Russian's Katyusha rockets, the situation was stabilized by April 1942.

Actually they ran like hell and fought where they could, err, were ordered to with a gun at their back. The situation was very far from stabilized in early 1942 though. The Russian army suffered a tremendous defeat at Kharkov for instance. While I think it's fair to say that by 1942 the threat of being wiped off the map had ended, the winter took care of that, they still spent much of 1942 advancing to the rear so to speak.

The Russians did try to counter attack numerous times but lets be honest, 1941 was a rout. If not for the winter Germany might have pulled it off. Still, it was a mighty big country. I doubt very much that Germany could have digested it when all was said and done.

Oh, and it wasn't just the surprise attack. Stalin had a tendency to kill his own people. That went for the army too. While it was the largest army in the world when Hitler atacked it was very far from the best run in terms of leadership. Stalin was the type of guy you just didn't want as a friend or as an enemy.

The Russian winter + the slash and burn tactics made it impossible for the Nazis to survive the region. Like during the Napolean invasion of Russia, when the Russians retreat they burn everything and poison the water, leaving not food, water, nor shelter.

Stalin is the type of guy that I don't want to be in the same region with, make that the same era.

Having faced someone with a club I chose to stand my ground. However, all must choose their own path.

What is important is knowing the correct path to choose.

Do you stand or retreat?

Everyone's Aikido training should be teaching/exploring several methods or options to use in situation like the one mentioned in the lead post.

Myself, I dislike firearms but...

Weapons are always an option too.

I'd rather face an experience knife fighting thug with a jo or hanbo or maybe a manrikigusari that I just pulled from my pocket, than with nothing at all.

Heck a belt with a big belt buckel could be of use too.

But in accordance with Aikido, I think it's important to be thinking of defense and obtaining harmony when in a situation like this. (i.e. how do a best protect myself and how do I remove myself from the conflict by the path of least resistance)

For me it's not running, but for others it might be. This doesn't mean you can't run around a corner and hit your attacker with a irimi-nage as he comes around in hot pursuit!

les paul
just my thoughts

IMHO, I agree with some of the earlier comments (and critiques) from the Aiki Expo Freindship Demonstrations. The randoris that stand out are those that entered and blended rather than ran away by backing up.

Jun, BTW was part of an excellent demonstration. Deepest compliments and appreciation. My own Sensei Phong started the demos saturday night and he always teaches us to go into (even after) the next uke. Once contact is initaited, it is maintained.

Until again,

Lynn
Nidan Tenshinkai Aikido
Lucaylucay Kali JKD

I really enjoyed that demonstration... I leaned over to my sensei and laughingly remarked someone had forgot to tell your sensei that 'size matters' in Aikido...

Hi Lynn,

Originally posted by SeiserL Jun, BTW was part of an excellent demonstration. Deepest compliments and appreciation.

Thanks! I was honored to be asked to be part of the demonstrations by my teacher. Of course, being thrown by him would make pretty much anyone look good!

I enjoyed Phong sensei's demonstrations quite a lot. I can no longer whine about being smaller/lighter than uke after having seen his demonstration...

-- Jun

This thread contradicts earlier threads which goes towards the idea that running away from an attacker is a good choice. Am i right? I'm not very sure. Hope someone could clarify

So exactly, when is running away from an attacker the right choice and when is it not?
Any real examples?

Thanx

Running away is a good idea when it is more likely that you will get away than it is you will be able to vanquish your attacker. So, if your Aikido is not so good, and you are not so big, your chances are better that you will outrun than beat-up your 240 pound attacker, especially if he does not have a gun and you can slow him down with either a foot injury for him, or available obstacles to put in his path, and perhaps attract help. This is an 'on the street' application not necessary in practice, as uke is not really going to kill you, and you are not able to run for safety if restricted to the mat.


The issue of the demo folks are talking about (the sensei who backed up) actually looked to me more to be runing backwards and sideways while facing his ukes (not an easy move to make, BTW), not turning his back to run away. Some have explained that as a tactic to draw ukes into a line, and if you think about it, you may have used something similar with just one partner during regular practice: there are some techniques that require a strong forward attack from uke. Sometimes uke, either because he is new, or non-energetic, or just doesn't understand the energy he needs to give, barely moves toward you. You then move backwards, while facing him, hoping to draw enough energy out of him to effect the throw.

On the very few occasions when I have used aikido outside the dojo, on reflecting what happened afterwards I saw that I entered deeply and used a sharp atemi at the throat or face, rather like irimi nage without the taisabaki. The attackers were on the floor before they realised what had happened--and I did not stay around to discuss matters.

I really do not think that the Friendship demonstration at the Aiki Expo was a 'life or death' situation. There was a huge mat area and all the ukes I saw in the aikido demonstrations were doing their best to cooperate with nage. You know, good 'clean' attacks, so that nage could demonstrate the effectiveness of the techniques. My own ukes were no exception.

Why do I think this? Well, on my way home from Las Vegas, I sat in airplanes for several hours and on the longest stetch (Los Angeles - Tokyo) my seat was the aisle seat on the first row upstairs, directly facing the captain's compartment. This would have been a crucial spot for dealing with any hijacker and I had ten hours of leisure to consider 'life or death' randori in a confined space.

I really have no idea what I would have done had the plane been hijacked, but I think I would have tried very hard to throw any hijacker backwards down the staircase. And this could be done in the space available only by entering and very hard atemi.

In aikido, I think ta-ninzu-gake against four attackers is most difficult (left, right, front, rear). If you have more than four, they get into each other's way. My instinct, probably based on experience, is to enter continuously and bisect large circles, and to try to throw one uke directly in the path of the other(s).

I was once counselled by an eminent aikido shihan that when confronted by a determined attacker with a knife, the best course would be to run, but on a plane, this would be impossible.

Best regards to all,

Could somebody out there with law experience confirm or deny this? I've read that many states in the U.S. require the victim of an attack to leave (run away) at the first available moment. If they don't leave and continue a counter attack then in the eyes of the law they are now the aggressor.

So if someone attacks me and I punch, kick, throw, trip, or avoid him and an opening for me to run appears and I DON'T take it, I am now the attacker and can be charged appropriately. Am I remembering this correctly?

Thanks,
Bronson

Mr. Peter Goldsbury, could you please elaborate further on the irimi nage without the taisabaki. I was wondering why did you do that and what is it actually.

Thanx

Originally posted by nikon Mr. Peter Goldsbury, could you please elaborate further on the irimi nage without the taisabaki. I was wondering why did you do that and what is it actually. Thanx

Well, as it so happens, we had a seminar here in Hiroshima over the weekend which was taught by Tada Hiroshi Shihan, 9th dan, and Tada Sensei made a connected point.

Actually, I was rather loose in my last post and should have mentioned irimi-nage without the tenkan movement. Of course, you need to make a taisabaki when you enter (irimi), but usually irimi nage is practised with a large tenkan movement, of anything from 90 degrees to a full circle.

Tada Sensei explained that the technique has two components, entering and the tenkan movement, but it can be done very effectively without the latter. In a plane, there would be no space anyway to execute such a movement.

Best regards,

Bronson,

Could somebody out there with law experience confirm or deny this? I've read that many states in the U.S. require the victim of an attack to leave (run away) at the first available moment. If they don't leave and continue a counter attack then in the eyes of the law they are now the aggressor.

This isn't legal advice, I'm just thinking out loud, ok? You really want to talk to a lawyer about this.

Generally, in self-defense force must parallel the danger. If you had an opportunity to escape, and chose to remain and continue to fight, your motive may be questioned if you were not facing a "serious" threat (or if the threat was no longer present). This is one generic guess as to how the law would be interpreted... You should really contact a lawyer or perhaps a DA in your state about this.

You may be able to find your state laws online, which may give you a starting point.

Regards,

Paul

Originally posted by Bronson Could somebody out there with law experience confirm or deny this? I've read that many states in the U.S. require the victim of an attack to leave (run away) at the first available moment. If they don't leave and continue a counter attack then in the eyes of the law they are now the aggressor.

Hi Bronson,

For the record, I am NOT a lawyer, so this is by no means legal advice of any kind.

Every state has different laws pertaining to the use of physical force for self defense. Here's a web site that will get you started researching your particular states statutes:

http://www.prairienet.org/~scruffy/f.htm

Some states, like Penn., require that you 'retreat to the wall' before you can justify using physical force on another person, while other states have no such requirement.

But in every state, if you accept a challenge and engage in 'combat by agreement' (AKA: a fight) you wave your right to using 'self defense' as justification for your use of physical force ...in other words, you're going to jail my friend!

Ask your sensei, he SHOULD know what the laws are in your area, and if he doesn't, do the research yourself! (...then provide him with a copy for his own education!)

Regards,

The retreat doctrine was pushed in some states about twenty years ago and some flaws became immediately apparent. In Massachusetts a woman was charged with a crime after shooting a man who entered her home and refused to leave when ordered to do so at gunpoint (exact details escape me, but he was up to no good). The trouble was that her children were asleep in bed upstairs and if he had used the escape route available to her, she would have left them with the Bad
Guy. The resulting uproar got the law changed in Mass. to allow that you never have to retreat if doing so places a third party in jeopardy. The opposite extreme in US law is the "Castle Doctrine" (as in my home is my castle) where you NEVER have to retreat in your home, lethal force optional. As a general rule in US courts if you can safely retreat and defuse the situation, you should probably do so. However SAFE retreat is the issue, if my children are at risk, I WILL attack/counter attack at my earliest opportunity with as much overwhelming force as
possible (overwhelming being the objective anyway- not naked use of force), because in the worst case they have a spare parent.

Originally posted by Bronson I've read that many states in the U.S. require the victim of an attack to leave (run away) at the first available moment.

This and other legal matters were discussed in the last two issues of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts. I wish I could summarize them for you, but alas, I did not read them well enough to answer your question.

--Chuck

here's a link to the past issues:

http://www.goviamedia.com/journal/issues.html

If I wanted to run from an attacker I would have joined a track club, not taken up a martial art.

Originally posted by cbrf4zr2 If I wanted to run from an attacker I would have joined a track club, not taken up a martial art.

Hello Edward,

....say that you are walking down the street, a guy approaches you, pulls a knife out, starts slashing it around screaming: "Satan requires your soul!" ...he's obviuosly not all there, probably on drugs, you can't reason with him, though you can sure try! ...are you telling me you're going to use you 'martail arts training' to handle this situation?!?! ...you have the opportunity to get out of there, but you'd rather go toe-to-toe wih this nut-case?!?! ...*LOL*...you're crazier than he is if you do!!!

...train hard my friend, you're going to need it!

Regards,