SD vs Combat

N

nate45

New member
After I got out of the Army, for about a fifteen year stretch all I did was pick up the occasional copy of American Handgunner, or Combat Handguns Magazine.

For that time period, neigh even for most of my life, including my time in the military, I was in my own little world and my own instructor in martial arts. Even for the five or so years I was in a Combat Pistol Club, I was the one that made up most of the scenarios. One day after reevaluating my techniques and comparing them to those of others. I realized that most of it fell in the realm of combat and less than lethal it wasn't. Even my hand to hand was too violent and extreme for civilian use.

It was almost impossible for me to imagine a scenario, other than one where a grievous felony was being committed, where law enforcement wouldn't blame me for being too extreme.


Luckily, IRL I'm a nice person and practice aviodance as my first line of defense. However, I'm still thankful for this forum and others for helping me see whats more mainstream in the LEO, SD instructor and legal community. Not too mention mainstream life in general. :o

Anyway, lets explore some of the key differences between SD and Combat and where they also overlap.
 
Anyway, lets explore some of the key differences between SD and Combat and where they also overlap.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you should have started with your views. Of course you are going to need to clearly define what each means first.

What is the goal you are attempting to achieve here?

I realized that most of it fell in the realm of combat and less than lethal it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to suggest that if lethal force is used that it is combat, but that less than lethal force is self defense???

Even my hand to hand was too violent and extreme for civilian use.
Click to expand...

I know-I know, your hands are on file with the FBI as lethal weapons.

Too violent and extreme for civilian use? There should be no reason to believe this unless you are suggesting that you don't have the ability to control your own actions and meter the force you use in an appropriate manner for the situation.
 
After spending 12 years in the hyper-aggressive Marine Corps, the biggest difference I see is your actions (not thoughts or planning )in self defense are reactionary rather than forward aggression. Distances comes into play as well in regards to encounters. And finally, as a member of a squad, I had back up. Out here it's SELF defense.
 
Right to retreat

The biggest difference is if they want to run away, you let them. You don't engage them just because they are still in range.
 
That's great you brought this up. There is real difference in trained to fight in combat vs training to fight in the streets of the USA. The biggest difference I've seen is the perception of when and how to engage a BG. Distance being the first thing. At 50ft a BG waving a knife and saying he might come at you if you don'y do what he says is more than enough reason to put a round in him and to continue on in combat but in the civilian world unfortunately if you were to do this the DA's office would put you under the jail. Most but not all will only call it justifiable if your attacker is within arms reach. Even when a BG makes his intentions very clear to you the law in a lot of places is in favor of the BG causing you damage before you are able to defend yourself. Take D.C. for instance. The head honcho there is on record saying he would rather see a law abiding citizen be beaten and robbed than the BG taking a fatal round. In the military you are taught that job #1 is protecting yourself and the brothers to either side of you. In the civilian world you are expected to rely on someone with a badge to come to your rescue after the fact and if you absolutly must take matters into your own hands and defend yourself or loved ones there better be a good reason and it better be good enough in the eyes of someone that was never there or your up a creek. In the military you are trained to act in the civilian world you are expected to think then react to stimuli. The miliseconds between the two methods can have several possible outcomes but two that come to mind off hand is you act and someone else thinks after the fact you acted to harshly or you think about a given situation and how to react to it and by the time a decision is made that you hope the powers that be will agree with you've been shot beaten or worse. Needless to say the rules of engagement in the civilian world are lousy at best and learning and acting in manner other than that the so called mainstream disagree with can be well damaging at the least. I personally don't think there should be a difference in how you should deal with a thug in Florida vs [an enemy] in the sand box because they both can kill you just as dead but I'm in the minority.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Self defense is combat. The combat techniques used in self defense are the same you would use in a recon situation. You use stealth, camouflage, avoid engaging the enemy and use your weapon as a last resort.

When you engage your enemy, it is a last resort and you use the most effective technique which will preserve your life and allow you to extricate your self from the danger zone.
 
I agree self defense is combat. It sux not being able to call in support, but when the elephant appears then all bets are off and its all out war until the threat is neutralized. The caveat is that us civilians are under the microscope and grunts have immunity. So we have to be extra good and be able to walk away without a shot fired. Maybe. If you can without dieing. It's only survival and not ego.
 
I agree with ITC, SD IS combat. Maybe it is the rules of engagement that has you confused.

Too violent for civilian use? I guess you have never seen street crime. What gets people in trouble in the civilian world is to continue using force after the BG has been subdued.
 
Again IMO Kraigway hits the mark dead on. There is a difference between self defense and combat.

No one in the civil world including the police is in combat. Combat IMO is the domain of our military. While a citizen or a police officer may find himself fighting for his life... it's not combat. A citizen or the police may find himself under superior fire... it's still not combat.

A citizen is responsible to the local criminal law, and his own concience.
The solder is responsible to the UCMJ, his chain of command, and his own honor.
 
And I agree with Kraig and Glenn.

Self defense and combat might both call on some of the same basic skills and have some superficially similar attributes. But --

[1] The rules of engagement are very different. This is of considerable importance, because outside of a combat environment if one applies combat oriented rules of engagement, he is very unlikely to be happy with the legal outcome.

[2] And the objectives could be difference. In combat, the objective may be one of several things, including to gain territory, hold territory, or remove a hostile force from a location. In self defense, the objective is to stop an assault when necessary to prevent immediate harm to an innocent.

CountryUgly said:
....I personally don't think there should be a difference in how you should deal with a thug in Florida vs [an enemy] in the sand box ...
Click to expand...
You might think that, but that is most assuredly not the case. In our every day world, if you intentionally hurt or kill another human under circumstances in which your act of violence does not satisfy the requirements to be legally justified, you're no longer a "good guy"; you have become a criminal.
 
In the world of the armed citizen, the best rule of thumb is ADEE - avoid, de-escalate, disengage, escape, evade. Your situational awareness and ability to spot trouble in advance and avoid it - a major combat skill - is still critical.

You ADEE as much as possible.

But when someone brings it to you in spite of your best efforts and you can't avoid it, then it's on. You don't get to START it, but you'd better be fully prepared to FINISH it -- up to the point your attacker disengages, surrenders or is rendered incapable of further attack.

Legitimate self defense ends when your assailant's capacity or will to attack ends...

Take a look at http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Violence-Comparison-Martial-Training/dp/1594391181 and see if it helps. Don't worry too much about the 'martial arts' in the title, it's the real world violence stuff that counts. Or see his blog at http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/ . Stuff like this:

Any sport is a contest designed to test like against like and to measure the things we value as a species. So sport measures strength and speed and endurance (just like any animals trying to win a herd of females) and certain elements of thought. It does not measure and specifically forbids finding out who can go murderous quickest, who has least social conditioning, who can cheat first and hardest... All things incredibly valuable in every other type of physical conflict.
 
Last edited:
The caveat is that us civilians are under the microscope and grunts have immunity.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Tell that to the soldiers and Marines that have been prosecuted for bad kills. Rules of engagement, the UCMJ, and the Geneva Conventions are ALL looked at in after action reports and debriefing.

Self defense is NOT combat. Self defense in civilian life rarely lasts longer than 2 hr fire fights and usually doesn't involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds.
 
Each of us will have a different "perception" of the terms SD and Combat, I think. AND, . . . that perception is based upon our training, experience, and level of proficiency.

As I go about my life, all is cool until the threat comes, whether it is an ambush, robbing, mugging, a wild jihadi, or any other individual/group who threaten my safety: when it starts, I immediately go into SD mode.

SD mode to me is doing "whatever it takes" for the moment to remove or neutralize that threat. I have run away. I have gone into another room. I have fired a warning shot (only once, . . . a looooong time ago). I have given the robber enough to satisfy him and get me loose. I have grabbed my opponent by the ears and beat his face into a telephone pole.

It remains SD for me until I have gotten to the place where I can now make an intelligent decision: do I want to escalate this to combat? If the answer is "YES", then whatever close and/or appropriate weapon I can get is brought to bear, . . . no quarter given, . . . and I will continue in combat mode until that threat is totally neutralized.

The definition of the neutralized threat is the difference I see between civilian SD and military combat. SD situations only concern now, today, here, and this particular bg or set of bg's. If they detach and depart, . . . I am a good witness and away they go. In a military combat situation, any and all who ID themselves by their actions as my adversary: clean em up, put em down, secure the area from all holstiles.

Just an old condger's thoughts.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
SD VS Combat

Similar Skill sets, however:
Combat is war; pushing forward seeking contact with an enemy so that they can be destroyed.

A major part of SD is avoiding violent encounters if at all possible. The use of deadly force in "SD" is when no other reasonable action will abate the threat.

In combat deadly force often is the desired effect, sought out, not avoided. If in combat a US sniper makes an 800 yard kill of an enemy combatant who is trying to place a roadside bomb, its a "Good" kill. The sniper didn't warn off the combatant in an effort to stop the threatening behavior. The sniper killed him, thus ensuring that there is now one less bomber and his surviving buddies are well aware that endangering American lives can cost you yours. There is no legal civilian "SD" version of this.
 
SD vs Combat = Offense vs. Defense
Click to expand...

Combat is war; pushing forward seeking contact with an enemy so that they can be destroyed.
Click to expand...

So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalation forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?

No one in the civil world including the police is in combat. Combat IMO is the domain of our military. While a citizen or a police officer may find himself fighting for his life... it's not combat. A citizen or the police may find himself under superior fire... it's still not combat.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, you are saying that combat is military on military fighting but a civilian in the middle of the fighting isn't in combat? I understand that the civilian may not be a combatant, but you seem to say that the civilian would not be in combat.

Self defense is NOT combat. Self defense in civilian life rarely lasts longer than 2 hr fire fights and usually doesn't involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds.
Click to expand...
Of course, the Indian Campaigns of the 1800s didn't often involve RPGs, IEDs, or mortar rounds and there are numerous accounts of prolonged attempted seiges of civilians by the Native Americans during the period of these conflicts. I don't think technology and length of engagement are defining attributes of one versus the other.

So going with the notion of "combat" being a military activity, I started search a variety of military sites for a proper definition from various US and British military groups on their respective websites and in online guides. The term of "combat" is ubiquituous and stated as a term in no need of defintion, but usually referring to conflict (physical fighting) between opposing forces where conflict can be in the form of direct contact fighting such as occurred in the Battle of Iwo Jima, or just long range exchanges. However, the exchange of force isn't a deciding factor either as soldiers may be injured or killed in combat when they have come under attack but do not or cannot respond to the attackers. For example, a US destroyer sunk by torpedo in WWII from a Japanese submarine resulted in seamen killed or injured "in combat" despite never having performed any action against the submarine or even knowing where the submarine was that torpedoed the ship.

Without specific definition, the use of the term "combat" in military texts seems quite broad in what it covers.
 
Semantics.

So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalition forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?
Click to expand...

No, that's not exactly my meaning. I am referring to a distinction between the killing that takes place in war and the application of deadly force in self defense. In SD the goal is never to kill, the goal is to use the minimal force necessary to stop the threat. An unintended consequence of stopping the threat may be the death of the aggressor. To continue to use force after the threat has ended is excessive. In war often (not always) the objective is to kill the enemy. At the time of their death they may not have been doing anything overtly hostile but were still legitimate targets of war. Drone strikes, JDAM's and sniper shots among other tools of war are intended not just to stop aggressive behavior but to kill.

There is a broad chasm between what is "Legal" in war and what is legal in SD.
Pop Quiz: Tape a few claymores to 55 gallon drums of napalm , emplace them around the perimeter of your property then touch 'em off when your dog starts barking.
Question: Is this appropriate behavior for "Combat" (as in war) or "SD" as in the judicious application of the deadly force continuum to stop a reasonably perceived threat?

In the opening post, I don't think the OP was looking for a semantic debate over the dictionary definitions of "Combat" VS "SD". Correct me if I am wrong, but what I got from his post was that he had been trained for war and wanted to discuss the distinction between War and SD outside the context of war.

The Dictionary definition of "Combat" is so vague
1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously:
Click to expand...
that it can be applied to either situation of "SD or "War". But I think I understood the OP's intention was to use the term "Combat" to refer to war.
 
Last edited:
That would be stretching it too thin. Combat is more of a state of mind than it is the notion of are you military or civilian. If you want to live, you go on the offense mentally. It works in Chess, it works on the street, it works on campaign.

Somebody pulls a knife on you. You draw your gun. Of course you are defending yourself. How did you not just go offensive on him? :D

The best defense is a good offense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top