Self-Defense Techniques & Tactics is your guide to mastering basic street-smart self-defense and develop the survival skills and strategies to feel safe in any environment. The preventive measures, defensive maneuvers, and combinations in this book require no prior experience to perform. If you run a women's self defense program, and are looking for material to handout to your students/clients, these PDFs of the different course modules are available for use. The material is copyrighted, and can only be used in the format in which it is presented i.e. None of the files, can be altered, changed or modified.
One of the earliest reviews we did here at The Martialist was of the Canemasters self-defense cane and accompanying video program (which, at the time, was a VHS tape). My interest in cane fighting techniques stems from an accident many years ago in which, while sparring outside on a flat riverbed made of broken rock, I shoved my foot in a hole and smashed my ankle against a sharp outcropping. Had I not been wearing a heavy boot, my ankle would have been shattered. As it was, the contusion I suffered caused my ankle to swell like a grapefruit. The Urgent Care doctor was certain I had broken it until the x-rays said otherwise.
I hobbled around on my Canemasters cane for several weeks, trying not to let the injury slow me down. I was, in fact, on the phone to my teacher the very next day, asking when we could practice cane defense methods. An able-bodied person would be no less served by learning the basics of the defensive cane. Canes are legal to own, legal to carry, and — depending on the style you tote — very low-profile. When you carry a cane, you are essentially carrying a fighting stick (or escrima) already deployed for action. What’s more, your fighting stick has a hook on the end for grabbing.
For purposes of cane defense, I recommend against canes that have no crook. These are more likely to be construed as clubs, particularly if you don’t need the cane to walk. (If, on the other hand, you do need the assistance of a cane for day-to-day locomotion, you can get away with a lot more in terms of the style of walking stick you carry.) The crook also provides you with great versatility for tripping and steering your opponent.
From the outset, I should explain that the method I’m imparting here is not drawn from any specific program — not Canemasters, not Ted Truscott’s Raising Canes, and not Charles Davis‘ program (one of our sponsors). The techniques described herein are purely those that I personally find most useful and practical. Standard disclaimers apply, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah. Anything you like probably came from one of those programs; anything you don’t like can be blamed solely on me.
I recommend wielding the cane as an overlong escrima with a hook on the end. It need be no more complicated than that. What that means is you’ll use the stick for striking and thrusting, for blocking, and for a limited amount of grabbing and steering. You won’t be using it as a tool of leverage for complicated pressure point and joint lock techniques, and you absolutely will not use it for flailing, swinging, uncontrolled whirling of the cane. The latter are often demonstrated by would-be cane exponents who don’t understand the weapon and don’t know what they’re doing.
Blocking
The first thing you can do with an impact tool like the cane is block a strike or an incoming weapon. The most practical way to do this is with two hands. Gripping the cane toward the ends, strike out as you block to whichever angle — up, down, left, and right — and be prepared to retract the cane and move or zone as you block. In the case of upper and lower blocks, you may choose to drive forward and jam the incoming attack as you block, or you may need to bow your body to avoid a low strike as you intercept it with your downward blocking motion.
While it’s not as easy or as effective to do, you can also block with one hand, bracing the crook against your arm and using the cane to bolster a forearm block. This means your arms is doing more of the work and the cane is doing less of the work, which is why I’m not as fond of this method. But you can do it, and if you’ve got another weapon in your opposite hand this one-hand block may be all that you can manage.
Remember that every block with the cane is essentially a strike. You must “hit” outward as you block for your block to have sufficient force. Blocking aggressively while driving forward is simply good fighting principle, too.
Striking and Thrusting
There are several different ways you can accomplish striking with the cane. The most obvious is that you can thrust with the tip, and if you do, I would recommend holding the cane in both hands to get maximum force behind it. Wielding the cane in this way — as if it were a larger staff — also gives you a great deal of control. https://skyrim-more-carry-weight5.peatix.com. From a tip thrust like this, you can reverse the cane and strike or hook and steer from the crook end.
Less obvious, but more powerful, is to strike with the crook of the cane. This is not a thrust, but a swinging, slashing movement that uses the rounded portion of the crook as the striking surface. https://bestwfiles756.weebly.com/the-notorious-big-ready-to-die-album-zip.html. The subtle difference in balance makes the crook end a very natural striking point. You can develop tremendous power with this type of swing.
There are those who object to striking with the crook on the grounds that an opponent could use the crook for leverage to grab and hold your weapon. This is only an issue if you’re very slow, very weak, and prone to posing with your weapon onImovie 9.0.0 for mac. the target (rather than withdrawing it) when you strike. There is no more danger that an opponet will grab the crook of a cane than that he might grab, say, the swinging end of a pair of nunchaku. Wielded properly, the striking cane simply moves too fast for the average person to grab like that.
This is not to say that a grab can’t and won’t happen. If it does, rejoice. The best thing an opponent can do is tie up one or both of his hands by trying to grab for your weapon. The cane can’t hurt you if it’s not under his full control, but if he’s tied up with it, take advantage of that fact. Grip the cane with just one fist and hit him with your free hand.
With two hands on the cane, you can combine techniques by first thrusting, then reversing the cane and striking with the crook, then thrusting again as you reverse on the rebound of your strike. Mixing up thrusts and strikes produces a technique flow, both in training and in application. Remember always to strike for the closest target with the most logical technique for that target. Don’t try to force a touch that just isn’t likely to work.
Hooking
The primary advantage of the crooked cane for self-defense (apart from the fact that it can be carried in plain sight) is the leverage provided by the crook. As follow-through from a strike, or as defensive techniques in and of themselves, hooking maneuvers can put your opponent off balance. The sharper crook points of “fighting” canes make such a technique even more effective, because if you miss getting a good “grab” with the crook (the point of the crook is pressing against a body part rather than hooked around it), the pressure from the tip will still pull that body part to you with considerable force (and even pain).
Hooking techniques are techniques of opportunity. You don’t wade into a self-defense scenario expecting to use them. Instead, you use them when some portion of your opponent happens to come into range and you notice this. You can hook the ankle or lower leg, the results of which should be obvious. You can also hook the shoulders, “steering” your opponent to one side or the other. You would do this as a means of very quickly repositioning yourself (or, more accurately, repositioning the opponent relative to you). The movement has to be fast because otherwise the two of you will find yourself fighting in place, locked in a battle of muscle with the cane trapped between you.
What you will not do in realistic cane defense is apply any sort of complicated joint lock or leverage, involving either the crook or the shaft of the cane. These techniques are simply too complicated to work in practical self-defense. They generally take too long to apply, meaning that while you’re trying to get them in and apply pressure, the opponent has time to fight you for possession of the cane pressed against some part of his body.
Previously I have discouraged the reader from attempting pressure-point and joint-lock techniques with the yawara or pocket stick. I similarly discourage any sort of joint lock method with the cane because there is too much risk for too little possibility of success.
Seek Training
The basic concepts described here are enough to get you started, but to learn effective defense with the cane, you’ve got to get training with the weapon. Kali/Arnis and other Filipino Martial Arts (FMAs) will help you with the basics of striking and body positioning with sticks and similar weapons (including long blades), so that’s an obvious place to start. There are also several instructional programs on the market (whose offerings include seminars, DVDs, and supplemental materials). Among those The Martialist endorses are the programs of Charles Davis, Ted Truscott, and Canemasters. We may not be in complete agreement with the curricula of these providers, but their overall programs are sound and we recommend each of them.
Too many people — who have in their heads little more than the vague idea that the cane can be a weapon — pick up a drugstore cane and take to the Internet brimming over with faulty or ill-conceived “self-defense” information. The study of the cane as weapon requires more practical knowledge than that, and only in-person training can truly provide that knowledge. Remember, please, that all supplemental and in-home training materials must be secondary to actual martial arts instruction in the use of sticks and staffs as weaponry.
To carry a cane as a weapon of self-defense is to have with you a remarkably useful tool. Yes, it is a weapon… but it is also a means of keeping your balance in difficult terrain or when suffering from back pain or joint problems. The cane extends your reach, gives you a makeshift handle, and can be an emergency lever. It is stronger than your flesh and it does not feel pain. It can be everything from a fire poker to a short tent pole to a makeshift security lock for your door. The cane is therefore a versatile survival implement. Few tools so simple offer so much in return.
The legal term self defense refers to a type of affirmative defense used to explain one person’s use of force against another person. For example, self defense describes a situation wherein one person reasonably uses force to defend himself against an attack by another person on the subway. A person might use non-deadly force, or deadly force, to defend himself, depending on the situation. To explore this concept, consider the following self defense definition.
Definition of Self Defense
Noun
The act of defending oneself, one’s family, or one’s property through the use of force.
A plea of justification for the use of force, or for the killing of another person.
Self defense laws in the U.S. dictate that a person is allowed to use force against another person if it “reasonably” appears necessary to do so. Situations that would call for the use of force involve those wherein a threat of “unlawful” and “immediate” violence has presented itself. In these cases, a person may be permitted to use either deadly or non-deadly force in order to protect himself or his family.
Self defense laws restrict the protections of such a defense for those who initiate the conflict. There are two ways a person can remain protected under self defense laws if he was the one to start the conflict. The first is if he chose to leave the fight and informed the aggressor of his surrender, and the aggressor pursued him anyway. The second is if the other person responded to the presentation of a conflict with excessive force.
Autodata crack dongle key for software. What follows is an example of self defense that would be permitted as a defense for an aggressor:
Billy discovers that Jack has been physically abusive toward Billy’s sister, Emily. Billy goes to the local bar, where he knows Jack likes to hang out, and punches Jack in the face. Billy immediately regrets what he did and apologizes to Jack, but Jack does refuses to accept Billy’s apology. Instead, Jack pulls a gun on Billy.
Despite the fact that Billy had originally started the fight, Billy would be justified in using force against Jack to restrain him, or otherwise disarm him, due to the immediate threat that Jack is posing to Billy’s life. In this example, Jack clearly responded to the situation with excessive force.
Right of Self Defense
The right of self defense is the right for a person to use reasonable force to defend himself, his property, or the lives of others. If necessary, the use of deadly force can be permitted, depending on the circumstances. Once someone uses excessive force, which is more force than the situation truly calls for, then he gives up his right of self defense. In that case, he goes from being the person defending himself to the aggressor in the action. If a defendant exercises his right of self defense as a response to a threat of death or serious harm, then he is said to have a “perfect self defense” justification.
Reasonable Force
Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
Reasonable Force and the Police
Because police officers deal with imminent threats on their lives every day, courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not an officer’s use of force was reasonable. Elements that are considered include the severity of the crime, whether the suspect did indeed pose a serious threat, whether the suspect had a weapon, and whether the suspect was resisting arrest or trying to run away. If an officer is found to have used unnecessary force, then he can be subject to serious punishments, such as being brought up on criminal charges, or being sued by the victim in civil court.
The amount of force that an officer is permitted to use is a hot topic that often leads to controversy. Police officers are permitted to use as much force as they “reasonably” believe is necessary at the time of the arrest in order to protect both themselves and the public. However, those belonging to ethnic or racial minority groups often oppose the level of force that officers choose to employ.
While officers are permitted to use deadly force to prevent a dangerous suspect from escaping – and potentially harming more people – they are required to give a warning whenever possible. Deadly force is considered unjustified when the suspect does not pose an immediate threat to the officer, nor to anyone else.
Duty to Retreat
The Trident Self Defense Move
In criminal law, there is a requirement known as the duty to retreat. The duty to retreat is the condition that a person who is being threatened should not “stand one’s ground” and use deadly force to defend himself. Instead, he should retreat from the situation and seek safety, if that is possible.
When the duty to retreat is used in conjunction with self defense as a legal defense, it is up to the defense to prove that the defendant was acting reasonably by avoiding conflict. The defense must also show that the defendant had done everything he reasonably could to retreat and, in doing so, showed that he had no intention to fight before being forced to use force in order to defend himself. Only a small percentage of states currently have duty to retreat laws.
There are certain situations, however, wherein the duty to retreat is not possible or reasonable, such as when a person is threatened in his own home, or at his place of business. Police officers, on the other hand, are not obligated to retreat when presented with imminent threats of danger while on the job. The fact that a person’s home or workplace are exempt from the duty to retreat is known as the “castle doctrine.”
Imperfect Self Defense
Imperfect self defense is a common law, which holds that a defendant can avoid punishment for using deadly force, so long as he can prove that he had an honest – if unreasonable – belief that his actions were necessary. The idea here is that, if a defendant possessed an unreasonable belief that it was necessary for him to use force to defend himself in a given situation, he could not have acted with malice. For the prosecution, malice is a particularly important element to prove when seeking a murder conviction.
In using an imperfect self defense, a defendant may be able to reduce his liability for his crime. For instance, in some jurisdictions, the successful usage of imperfect self defense can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. However, most jurisdictions do not permit imperfect self defense to be used as a legitimate defense.
Self Defense Example in a Spousal Abuse Case
An example of self defense presents itself in a case involving spousal abuse. Betty Moran had repeatedly endured brutal beatings at the hand of her husband, Willie. According to Betty, Willie had a violent temperament, an extensive collection of firearms, and was always armed. On one occasion, Willie was holding her by her throat and hitting her with one of his guns.
On May 15, 1981, Betty and Willie had fought their final fight. According to Betty, Willie had asked her earlier that day to give him some money he thought she had saved. He threatened Betty that if she did not have the money ready for him by the time he awoke up from his nap, he would “blow [her] damn brains out.”
Self Defence Techniques Pdf Download
Betty did not actually have the money that Willie thought she did, and instead she called a friend to possibly loan her the money. When that did not work, and she realized there would be no way for her to get the money Willie requested, she walked into the camper where he was asleep, picked up his gun, and shot him.
Betty was arrested and charged with murder. At her criminal trial, Betty plead not guilty, stating that she had killed Willie in self defense. Betty claimed to be a victim of battered woman syndrome. This is a condition wherein a wife is so dependent on her husband, both financially and emotionally, and so afraid he will harm her if she leaves, that she finds herself unable to leave him, despite his violent behavior. Victims of battered woman syndrome may be inspired to finally kill their husbands, as they see this as their only means of escape.
The jury at Betty’s trial was instructed that Betty was responsible for providing enough evidence to back up her claim of self defense. Betty’s attorney objected to this, saying that it was unconstitutional to place this burden on Betty, rather than on the State. The objection was overruled, and Betty was ultimately convicted of aggravated murder. Betty appealed to the Court of Appeals of the County of Cuyahoga, and the Court affirmed her conviction. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed her appeal.
Betty then sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the appellate court’s holding, arguing that the jury was improperly instructed, and to request that the State bear the burden of proof in her prosecution. The Court, however, denied her request.
Related Legal Terms and Issues
Affirmative Defense – The introduction of evidence in a trial that would negate, or “cancel out,” the defendant’s civil or criminal legal responsibility for the alleged act.
Aggressor – A person that attacks another person first.
Defendant – A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
Malice – The intention to do evil, inflict injury, or cause suffering of another.
Prosecution –The lawyer(s) who argue that a person who is accused of a crime is guilty.