All IN, or All OUT |

All IN, or All OUT

When it comes to self-defense I tell my students that they have to be either “all in or all out”.

What I mean by that is that they must choose to escape immediately….and to do so fast. However, if the opportunity to escape safely is not present, and they must use violence as a survival tool to secure a chance to get away safely – then they have to do so with full commitment and intent – “all in”.

Striking your attacker half-heartedly and with no real intent to injure is too risky. He wants to kill or cripple you. If you don’t commit fully, then the chances of you escaping at all, forget uninjured, are slim to none.

It is commonly said that the “best defense is a good offense”. Well, actually, in our context of self-protection, the best defense is absence. Don’t be in that situation in the first place, and/or escape immediately.

But when it comes down to it and you are forced into defending yourself, you have to cause significant enough damage to your attacker so that you can get away safely.

I’m not talking about overkill here…I mean doing whatever is necessary to create an opportunity for safe escape.

Be all in or all out – there is no other way.

T.J. Kennedy

The Path Of Violence (by: Michael Joyce)

This entry was posted on February 11, 2011 at 5:10 pm and is filed under Philosophy, Self-Defense, Teaching Topic, Training with tags fight or flight, fighting, HFM, Hybrid Fighting Method, self-protection, T.J. Kennedy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

4 Responses to “All IN, or All OUT”

Joe Says:
February 11, 2011 at 7:55 pm

Response must equal intent.

Reply
- Michael Joyce Says:
  February 11, 2011 at 11:24 pm
  
  ‘Must’ is such a definitive word. Sometimes I feel that the saying that “Response must equal intent” can be misconstrued. Although it might be ideal to have proper intent in order to maximize the effectiveness of our actions… in self defense (if escape is not feasibly possibly) the our intent should be singular “survival.” Our response is whatever ensures that survival – whether it’s compliance or dominance. If I mean to strike stomach meridian point 9 or 10, but instead I clip the ear, but affords me the needed step towards my escape – I’ll take it. Didn’t mean to get nerdy on ya! Great post T.J.! That’s why I picked it.
  
  Reply
T.J. Kennedy Says:
February 12, 2011 at 7:26 am

Thanks for posting Michael.

Reply
Bruce b Smith Says:
February 14, 2011 at 2:37 pm

I believe you should go at least one step above your attacker, quick, clean, and showing you will not be “the victim”

Reply