Defend vs. Protect

Blog Article/Post Caveat (Read First Please: Click the Link)

As a karate-ka whose intent in training, practice and the application of karate for self-protection I wanted to find a term or phrase that would convey what I wanted and this one, self-protection in lieu of self-defense, seems to fit the needs. In the use of self-defense is is simply dangerous to make use of the term in any form because self-defense is very much a legal term.

Legal terms tend to get one in a lot of trouble especially if they don’t understand how that effects what they may perceive and intend for self-defense using karate or any other discipline that physically is used to stop an attacker. Self-defense defenses are not what most would assume would be used as karate defense defenses. 

So, as an example I decided to find definitions of varying forms of the word defend and protect. Here is that:

• Defend: resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger.
• Protect: keep safe from harm or injury. 

As another example, I decided to also provide definitions of defense and protection. Here is that:

• Defense: the action of defending from or resisting attack. military measures or resources for protecting a country. a means of protecting something from attack. 
• Protection: the action of protecting someone or something, or the state of being protected. a person or thing that prevents someone or something from suffering harm or injury.

Finally, as example again, I decided to do research and provide a definition of self-defense and self-protection. The first is a legal definition while the other is not. 

• Self-Defense: (Generally) use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. 
• Self-Protection: It is noted that there are no legal definitions on the term or phrase of self-protection. All searches defer to the legal pages on self-defense with no references that self-protection is or is not self-defense. Nothing in the legal definitions make use of or reference self-protection as a legal term or phrase. Self-protection is “the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger.”

It would be advisable, before you face legal ramifications for protecting yourself using the term, “self-protection” because as I am not an attorney nor any type of legal professional I have to assume there is a possible connection between the two terms that would automatically trigger the self-defense laws. I am merely choosing different terms and phrases so as to NOT suggest to anyone in or out of the self-protection arena and communities that this is a legal explanation of either defense or protection as it applies to the self-defense laws of any state. 

Ask police, ask legal professionals and ask your legal representative long before you use the term with legal first responders in the event you use your skills for self-protection. Actually, do this long before you ever use your skills for self-protection just so you won’t have to endure the costs and ramifications of self-defense defense. 

This is just my view and perspective so the student and practitioner knows that there are better terms to use in training, practice and application of methodologies. This is why I also advocate teaching the gently art of articulation of self-protection measures and skills.  

PoTATo’s and POTaaaTo’s, people might assume that splitting hairs in terminology and articulation is a waste of time but what we say often leads to what we do and what we do also to what we say. In self-protection we want to be “pragmatic” about our approach and that means worrying about, “semantics.” Intended meaning is about context, context can mean going to jail or walking away unscathed. When we say something in our defense we want to use proper semantics to convey our pragmatic, intended, meaning and that has to be exacting because of the one’s listening as they must interpret what you are saying. 

Pragmatics is the intended meaning of what you say and semantics is the literal meaning of the words, sentences and paragraphs that end up in legal documentation. It means that it is both semantics and its context, pragmatics of what you said, wrote and so on. Confusing, well, consider how the words, articulation, you use may or may not effect the listener especially when that listener is deciding on whether you get cuffs or a get off free card. 

If your sensei says that you can choke and break a persons neck and it is self-defense, do you think repeating it in the same fashion is going to go well with a first responder? Think about what is used to articulate the lessons you are training and practice, think about how you use those same terms, will it work with the first responders? 

Read also: Adrenaline Based Communications

Bibliography (Click the link)