Hi All,
I instruct in defense tactics, mostly ASP baton and some R.A.T. (Rapid Assault Tactics). I have three types of students, LEO, private security & civilians. My question is, with each group what are the best (most PC, court friendly, etc.) terms for each category:
The Attacker
Subject, Opponent, Combatant, Aggressor, Bad Guy
The Skill Being Used
Defense Tactics, Self Defense, Self Preservation, Offensive Tactics, Action & Response, Response & Control
The Defender
Officers, Good Guy
Thanks for the input.
Gavin
The Right Terms
I´d say there isn´t any "fits all" terms. Some like it PC, some like it straightforward.
For me personally, I find it rather funny to listen to some word creations people come up with to sound as PC as possible. I´m more in the straightforward category. Bad Guy, Cutting and Good Guy ist what it boils down to <img src="smile.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle>
For me personally, I find it rather funny to listen to some word creations people come up with to sound as PC as possible. I´m more in the straightforward category. Bad Guy, Cutting and Good Guy ist what it boils down to <img src="smile.gif" width=15 height=15 align=middle>
-
Michael Janich
- Member
- Posts: 3001
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:33 am
- Location: Longmont, CO USA
- Contact:
Dear Mr. Skin:
I think it does depend upon the situation and agree with judge that manufactured PC terms can sometimes cloud the issue.
For the sake of clarity, in most situations I prefer simply "attacker" and "defender." The defender uses "defensive skills" to "survive" the attack and "protect" himself and his loved ones.
I like "defensive skills" because it is a bit more generic and sounds less premeditated than "tactics." Some people hear "tactics" and think the person is programmed to respond without thought or was looking for an excuse to enter into a struggle that would allow him to apply tactics. Skills typically come into play when needed.
In mutual combat situations, the situation necessarily gets more complex. If there is no clear attack or defense, you're probably best using the names of the individuals or sticking with something like "suspect" and "officer."
I would avoid "good guy" and "bad guy" in any kind of formal discussion or testimony because it makes you seem too biased. By using names or suspect/officer, you can then describe the incident and create the proper "feel" through choice of verbs. For example, "At that point, the suspect attacked the officer, forcing him to employ defensive skills to protect himself. The violent nature of the attack clearly justified the officer's use of his (weapon name here - e.g. baton) and the application of (descriptive tactical term here - e.g. striking) skills."
I hope this helps.
Stay safe,
mike j
I think it does depend upon the situation and agree with judge that manufactured PC terms can sometimes cloud the issue.
For the sake of clarity, in most situations I prefer simply "attacker" and "defender." The defender uses "defensive skills" to "survive" the attack and "protect" himself and his loved ones.
I like "defensive skills" because it is a bit more generic and sounds less premeditated than "tactics." Some people hear "tactics" and think the person is programmed to respond without thought or was looking for an excuse to enter into a struggle that would allow him to apply tactics. Skills typically come into play when needed.
In mutual combat situations, the situation necessarily gets more complex. If there is no clear attack or defense, you're probably best using the names of the individuals or sticking with something like "suspect" and "officer."
I would avoid "good guy" and "bad guy" in any kind of formal discussion or testimony because it makes you seem too biased. By using names or suspect/officer, you can then describe the incident and create the proper "feel" through choice of verbs. For example, "At that point, the suspect attacked the officer, forcing him to employ defensive skills to protect himself. The violent nature of the attack clearly justified the officer's use of his (weapon name here - e.g. baton) and the application of (descriptive tactical term here - e.g. striking) skills."
I hope this helps.
Stay safe,
mike j
Attacker-the one who initiated force against another human.Reason unimportant;Attacker struck the first blow or threatened Defender with deadly force.
Defender-the one responding to an actual blow or the threat of an attack with deadly force.
Deadly Force-That degree of force that a reasonable person believes would kill or seriously injure a human.
Disparity Of Force-Hulk Hogan attacking Granny Clampett with bare hands.Under this principle Granny would be justified in useing a weapon in self-defense.Otherwise Defender may legally respond to Attacker with equal but not superior force.(Have a good lawyer!!!)
Skills-Training in any area:martial arts,job,etc.
Tactics-A plan to meet a specific situation.I.E.avoiding the Bucket Of Blood bar by driving 2 blocks out of your way.NOTE:Skills are the training.Tactics are the application of that training.
Cutting-(1)The act of useing an inpliment to open flesh,etc.(2)An incident involving #1:"There was a cuttin' down at the bar."
Good Guy-USUALLY the Defender;one who acts within moral & statute law to protect him/herself or other innocent parties.
Bad Guy-One who attacked for immoral or illigal purposes:i.e.to gain money for drugs.
Weapon-An impliment used to inflict injury.Yes Virginia ANYTHING can be a weapon in both the practical & legal senses:worst cut I ever saw was inflicted by a slash with a'church-key'style can opener.It didn't cut;it ripped.
When I teach I try to be polite but I use real-world termonology to make the point that self-defense ain't no game;that half-hearted attempts to meet force with force will only enrage the attacker.*Shrug*Just my thoughts.
Defender-the one responding to an actual blow or the threat of an attack with deadly force.
Deadly Force-That degree of force that a reasonable person believes would kill or seriously injure a human.
Disparity Of Force-Hulk Hogan attacking Granny Clampett with bare hands.Under this principle Granny would be justified in useing a weapon in self-defense.Otherwise Defender may legally respond to Attacker with equal but not superior force.(Have a good lawyer!!!)
Skills-Training in any area:martial arts,job,etc.
Tactics-A plan to meet a specific situation.I.E.avoiding the Bucket Of Blood bar by driving 2 blocks out of your way.NOTE:Skills are the training.Tactics are the application of that training.
Cutting-(1)The act of useing an inpliment to open flesh,etc.(2)An incident involving #1:"There was a cuttin' down at the bar."
Good Guy-USUALLY the Defender;one who acts within moral & statute law to protect him/herself or other innocent parties.
Bad Guy-One who attacked for immoral or illigal purposes:i.e.to gain money for drugs.
Weapon-An impliment used to inflict injury.Yes Virginia ANYTHING can be a weapon in both the practical & legal senses:worst cut I ever saw was inflicted by a slash with a'church-key'style can opener.It didn't cut;it ripped.
When I teach I try to be polite but I use real-world termonology to make the point that self-defense ain't no game;that half-hearted attempts to meet force with force will only enrage the attacker.*Shrug*Just my thoughts.
Everyone,
Thanks for all the input. I put the same question on a couple other forums. If anyone is reading more replies.
http://www.pfs-stx.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikon ... f=2;t=1198
http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/showth ... readid=306
Gavin
Thanks for all the input. I put the same question on a couple other forums. If anyone is reading more replies.
http://www.pfs-stx.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikon ... f=2;t=1198
http://www.selfdefenseforums.com/showth ... readid=306
Gavin