Non-violent self defense?

September 18, 2005 10:25 PM

What is the best form of non-violent self-defense, speaking in terms of both resultant injury and price?

Tonight, I was attacked by two extraordinarily drunk people after I kindly informed one of them that I was on my last cigarette, and apologized. I am well trained in non-violent self defense, and so managed to handle both of them. However, a much larger friend of theirs came up out of nowhere and cracked me in the jaw. At that point, I made my escape.

I feel as though a bit of offensive force may have ended the situation without much harm caused to anyone. I have looked into pepper spray and stun guns, but I worry about heart conditions and more lasting damage. I have encountered people a day or two after having been pepper sprayed, and the lasting effects seem to be both painful and noticeable. Also, stun guns are pricey. Basically, I'm looking for something that says, "Sleep it off," and lets me get away when surrounded by perhaps 4-5 people, and nothing more. In particular, I worry about using a device, such as pepper spray, against somebody who is, say, allergic to peppers (which I assume to be an allergy to capsaicin). Any suggestions?

Note that I was raised a religious pacifist. The idea is to subdue and stay safe, not cause physical harm. Minimizing pain for the attacker is a plus for me.

posted by anonymous to grab bag (25 comments total)

I'm not sure about price, but Judo really is more about subduing than maiming. But even that might be more "violent" than what you are looking for.
posted by BradNelson at 10:33 PM on September 18, 2005

A loud whistle?
posted by Item at 10:53 PM on September 18, 2005

Pepper spray would be a good deterrent; it's effects are strongest for about an hour, then last for several hours later. For a few days afterwards there may be some redness/swelling, etc, but I don't think there is permanent damage.

I understand your commitment to non-violence, but i cannot grasp how any form of combat, self-defense or not, can be non-violent. My advice would be to "make your escape" ASAP, and use pepper spray to discourage any pursuit.

Also, some pepper sprays apparently contain tear gas and other stuff. Look for a kind that is pure capsaicin. Several acquaintances of mine have pepper spray, but thankfully none have had to use it.
posted by adzm at 10:55 PM on September 18, 2005

I am well trained in non-violent self defense

Does that mean aikido?

Aikido is unique among martial arts in defending by blending. By blending, one moves in harmony with the attack instead of trying to resist or oppose it; speed, strength and power are kept to a minimum, replaced with timing and subtle technique that "steers" the attackers power. There is no way to attack another person with Aikido techniques or strategies.

When skillfully applied, neither the defender nor the attacker are hurt; rather the conflict is brought quickly to a resolution so that the party initiating force gains a new opportunity to be reasonable. Aikido is difficult to learn, but also a great deal of fun and good exercise as well. It holds little attraction for "macho" types who are eager to impress others or to exert coercive power.

Aikido levels the playing field considerably for defenders of less than athletic prowess; it is productive rather than destructive in application; and it attempts to replace force and agression with civilized interaction. One could not ask for a more rational self-defense.
posted by mediareport at 10:57 PM on September 18, 2005

What mediareport said. Also, the there's a major downside against carrying a weapon: it can be used against you. Your hands and feet can't.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:03 PM on September 18, 2005

I've been in similar situations and consider it highly likely that I will be again. The thing about judo (et al -- for me it's FMA), is that it is efficient and not so flashy -- which makes it handy, but it sounds like you want something intimidating, at least enough to get out of a fight.

That naturally brings up the topic of weapons, and even there, it's a fine line (again, a pair of rattan sticks could be very effective -- and legal -- yet not terribly impressive to a bunch of drunk frat boys... until you've started swinging, by which time you've moved past your pacifist intentions). The problem with other weapons is both legality and reprisal factor. On second thought, well used sticks can be pretty intimidating -- in that they're unusual and they speak of seriousness the way other martial arts weapons do not (if anyone ever confronts me with nunchaku, hell, I'd want to go for at least a minute just to see what the guy can do).

Then again, I always carry a whistle, but that's better for would-be muggers than drunks. I used to carry pepper spray, but frankly, it just doesn't incapacitate the way you wish it would when you need it to. And pissing off your assailant is not on the menu. Is mace legal where you live? (it isn't here) That's certainly a whole other order of effectiveness, but of course, it can backfire in more than one way (winds, use against you, etc).

It's really never a win-win situation unless you carry something perfectly legal and are very proficient with it, which means training in the less-than-pacific-arts. Not to plug, but FMA specializes in defence against armed opponents and can be very appropriate for street use compared to the more dojo or sport-oriented arts, and won't take 20 years to become effective like aikido.

on preview: ah -- I knew it would get mention. but seriously -- even our sensei (insisting on not showing us "finishing moves" -- perhaps other aikido instructors do) had no answer to the multiple-attacker scenario. You can't keep throwing and dodging forever. You're bound to get hit.
posted by dreamsign at 11:06 PM on September 18, 2005

Even though it's not an excellent solution (being downwind makes it useless), a can of pepper spray is a must. It does no long term harm as far as I know.
posted by abcde at 11:17 PM on September 18, 2005

To an extent, Aikido is pretty useless for non-violent defense as it's very oriented toward flips and when you're not on a mat and your opponent doesn't know the rolls that are also taught it can be very injurious. The Tokyo police learn a more sharp, less flowy form called Kidotai Aikido for riot control, though, and I imagine they're trying to be nonviolent so I'm a little confused on that front.
posted by abcde at 11:22 PM on September 18, 2005

It seems to me your question uses an elastic definition of "non-violent," reminiscent of vegetarians who eat fish. If you meant "non-lethal," that's one thing. But if you define "non-violent" to include pepper spray, stun guns, and martial arts weapons, then I'm lost.

You're right: Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. But when it comes to strangers randomly popping each other in the jaw, you need to realize that some people just go looking for a fight. And the only truly non-violent solution to people who won't let you walk away is to accept that, on rare occasions, you're going to take a black eye for your principles.
posted by cribcage at 11:26 PM on September 18, 2005

I am well trained in non-violent self defense

Does that mean aikido?

Why are people reading "martial arts" into this? Non-violent self defense is more like diplomacy with some tactical protective moves and a healthy acceptance of discretion as the better part of valor. It's how to keep from being injured by riot cops in the middle of a crazy protest, not how to spin them into hard objects when they come at you.

I would recommend doing some research on tasers. They're pretty controversial in law enforcement right now, so lots of people have been looking at the technology to figure out whether it's okay to have them in the hands of our peace officers. If there is anything to be dug up on them, I'm guessing it's been dug up. Still, I don't think those are any good against multiple assailants. Perhaps the stabbing variety are, just not the stun-gun-dart-thingys.

To opine briefly: anyone who moves to crack you in the jaw has 48 hours of swelling and flu-like symptoms coming to them.
posted by scarabic at 11:45 PM on September 18, 2005

But if you define "non-violent" to include pepper spray, stun guns, and martial arts weapons, then I'm lost.

It's pretty obvious. This person is looking for the least amount of violence possible that will get them out of this situation in the future. Pacifists aren't suicidal. They eschew violence, as in: they don't initiate it to solve problems, they don't believe in war, etc. I think this person is showing a remarkable amount of restraint in their approach. That restraint is pacifism.
posted by scarabic at 11:48 PM on September 18, 2005

But there is an inherent - and dangerous - problem with this approach. Once you escalate to violence of any sort, trying to triangulate a "least amount" is difficult at best. If you guess wrong, you've just "attacked" and annoyed someone who is already possibly looking to hurt you. You may have just turned a minor scrape or two or a sore jaw into broken bones and a hospital visit for yourself. Violence isn't something you can have "just enough" of unless you are very confident and well trained.

Honestly, the best advice is either to eschew violence completely and try to run away or defuse the situation instead or to use more than enough force to get out of the situation as quickly and decisively as possible. It's more of an all or nothing kind of thing; the middle ground is as likely to get you beat down badly than anything else.
posted by Justinian at 12:08 AM on September 19, 2005

I think no nonsense self defense is a must for anyone interested in self defense. I've read the entire site more than once. The biggest thing I got out of it for self defense was awareness and avoidance. Being aware of your surroundings and taking steps to avoid or to get out of potentially dangerous situations is going to be the best way to not need violence.

The no nonsense people offer classes in Colorado which I've not taken.
posted by 6550 at 12:27 AM on September 19, 2005

This is precisely the weapon you're looking for.
posted by wilful at 12:32 AM on September 19, 2005

It's pretty obvious. This person is looking for the least amount of violence possible that will get them out of this situation in the future. Pacifists aren't suicidal.

If that's what he meant he should have said "low-violence" or "minimal-violence".

It seems like the best solution would be to stay out of the areas where people beat other people up for not giving them cigarettes...
posted by delmoi at 12:44 AM on September 19, 2005

Maybe he meant it as a joke, but I agree with wilful. Just run away...for christ's sake, you're not Batman. I mean, if they were as extraordinarily drunk as you claim, running away would have meant, what? Ten strides? And then you wouldn't have a big slab of raw meat pressed to your jaw right now.

I guess I'm being a total dick when I say this, but I find your side of the story a little curious.

DRUNK GUY #1: Hey, can I bum a smoke?
ANONYMOUS: (kindly) I'm on my last cigarette.
DRUNK GUY #2: Come on, I know you have more than one.
ANONYMOUS: I do not, and I apologize.
[The two drunk guys immediately attack him.]

I mean, seriously...they just immediately jumped you? Really? Because I have another theory. I mean, you were there, not me, but I'm thinking maybe the drunk guys started talking smack and you couldn't resist talking back a little, right? Hey, I'm not saying that justifies trying to beat you up, but let me add to my previous advice of Just Run Away:

Keep Your Mouth Shut.

What's so awesome about this Second Rule Of Pre-Emptive Defense is that a mouth, kept properly shut, often precludes the need to Just Run Away in at least 90% of all iffy situations.

In fact, when taken figuratively, KYMS and JRA has all sorts of real-world applications: bad relationships, pushy salemen, terrible bosses, etc.

Now inevitably, someone on here is going to mention a scenario where you're just minding your own business and you really are just randomly attacked. If that's the case, fuck it, unless you're wearing a six-shooter on your hip you're pretty much screwed anyway. Do you really think you're going to be able to get your pepper spray out of your messenger bag while you're being beat down by guys who have the element of surprise and probably a little more experience at this than you?

You know what? I'm getting off on a tangent, here. I'm not even saying that you SHOULDN'T carry pepper spray or a taser or even a gun. If it makes you feel better, go for it. All I'm trying to say is that 'avoiding a fight' trumps the hell out of 'winning a fight' in my book any day.


Basically, I'm looking for something that [...] lets me get away when surrounded by perhaps 4-5 people...

Come on, how likely is that? Where do you live, Double Dragon II?
posted by Ian A.T. at 2:48 AM on September 19, 2005

Unfortunately, dear fellow, anything that has a chance of ending a violent altercation (and by that, I mean that the other bloke is in no position to retaliate) is not likely to be "non-violent" in the typical sense of the word.

If it is, how do you ensure he doesn't cause you any more harm? Your drunk attacker is not likely to think, "hmmm... he flipped me over. Better stop now."

All those nice choreographed moves and fights that go on for ages work only in the movies.
posted by madman at 3:12 AM on September 19, 2005

The best way to behave in a fight is to avoid it completely. Sometimes, it even involves putting up with crap and not provoking the other idiot. If it gets violent, somebody will get hurt, and there is a chance it could be you. Your "competition rules" martial art probably won't save you from a couple of bar brawlers.
posted by madman at 3:17 AM on September 19, 2005

I'd echo what Justinian says. If all other avenues are exhausted (avoidance, verbal fence, running away) and you are forced into a physical confrontation do not rely on "non-violent self-defence".

Most street fights are over in 3 seconds - to win you have to be quick and decisive. It is all or nothing and winning means pre-emptive strikes, head-buts, gouging, biting and stomping.

Anything goes on the street.
posted by the cuban at 4:08 AM on September 19, 2005

dirtynumbangelboy writes "Your hands and feet can't"

I will have to disagree with this, all weapons can be used against you, even (especially) the extremities!

To defend yourself from a group which outnumbers you is a very difficult prospect. I would suggest that there is no one strategy that will guarantee success. Escalation of violence by introducing a weapon as the victim would seem counter-intuitive, can you intimidate 5 people with a spray/gatt/.22/shotgun? It all depends on them, and is completely unpredictable.

Knowing the signs and escaping are your best options, as Ian AT says. The 5 stages of violent crime, from nononsenseselfdefence is a good primer.
posted by asok at 4:41 AM on September 19, 2005

Also, the there's a major downside against carrying a weapon: it can be used against you. Your hands and feet can't.

Then why are you hitting yourself?

Why are you hitting yourself?
posted by rxrfrx at 5:57 AM on September 19, 2005

I have encountered people a day or two after having been pepper sprayed, and the lasting effects seem to be both painful and noticeable.

Which might make them think twice about attacking somebody in the future, so your slightly violent pepper spray will reduce violence in the long term. From what I understand, pepper spray is painful enough that even a really drunk person might remember how painful it was the last time they got sprayed.

As someone else mentioned, if three or four guys decide to attack you, you're fucked, unless spraying one of them scares off the other three. Most likely what will happen is one of the remaining three will circle around behind you and hold you while the other two beat the living shit out of you for pepper spraying their buddy.
posted by bondcliff at 7:07 AM on September 19, 2005

There are two main tenets of Aikido which are essentially lies: 1. you don't injure the other person 2. size doesn't matter. A good friend of mine from college has been studying Aikido for the past 15+ years. When I saw her last, I asked her about some of these details and she said that in the ideal, you don't injure the other person, but in reality you'll probably be a little too zealous and break a few bones (and honestly, a few of the holds/come-alongs will do just that with only a modicum of force). She said that she might be good up to someone who weighed 250 or but beyond that not so good. She said that Run-kido is most effective.
posted by plinth at 7:30 AM on September 19, 2005

Self defense is almost by definition, violent. Avoiding the situation or running away are really the only viable non-violent options. I'd recommend pepper spray, especially the kind that contains semipermanent dye. If you are attacked, there's a chance you could identify your attacker later.
posted by electroboy at 7:48 AM on September 19, 2005

I'm 62, overweight, with cardiac insufficiency. In other words, I can't run. After several muggings, in which I got a broken leg and lost several teeth, I got a sprayer of 10% pepper spray. It lets me walk the street again. I've used it once, against a gang of punks who tried to rob me.

5% is said to be just as effective, and 7% is said to be the same, but 10% is the maximum you can legally buy in New York, and that's what I have.

Up to 17% is available on the net, but you need protective gear to use it, since even a tiny drop blown back can disable you, too.

Skunk oil is also available, under the brand name Rapel. See http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/herstory/rapel.html. I suppose a spray bottle of butyl alcohol (which has a nauseating smell) would also work. The problem is they aren't disabling, and they can easily blow back on you.
posted by KRS at 1:20 PM on September 19, 2005