Say, a child is about to be kidnapped (god forbid!) The kidnapper goes to grab the child and hauls them away to their vehicle awaiting down the street. Realistically, how practical is it that a child (say age 12 and below) can actually fight off an adult? Can a child really use Self-Defense to fight off an adult trying to do them harm? Or is it the reality of it that a child can use Self-Defense to keep the would-be kidnapper busy for a short period of time until an adult gets there to help? Or another friend? Any thoughts?
I heard a story in the news just a couple of days ago where a guy tried to kidnap a girl. She screamed and didn't go compliantly. A teacher ran out when she heard the screams, but I think the attacker was already running away. Not sure if this is the story I heard or another story. http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/03/25/new-details-of-attempted-school-abduction-released/ Here is another example............ [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9rqjT3Yzsw"]Little Girl Escapes from Alleged Kidnapper in Walmart: Caught on Tape by Security Cameras - YouTube[/ame] Attackers are sometimes looking for an easy target. And they give up when they don't get one. So yes, sometimes a child can succeed.
A child can dissuade an attacker by being a difficult target (making loud noises and struggling). A small child is extremely unlikely to fight off a grown man.
What they said. Actually fighting them off the odds are infinitesimal, but being a difficult target will make most go pick a different one. Few criminals want a difficult target
True, children are easier targets (generally) so my opinion (and experience) is that while you can teach children self-defense and how to say no to strangers, stranger danger, etc.... A child physically cannot defeat a grown adult. While they can kick, bite, punch, gouge, the odds of a 3' tall child outdoing a full grown adult is nearly impossible. My opinion is why not teach children (vulnerable people) self-defense to give them a few second window of opportunity. So that they can keep the bad person at bay until another adult gets there. Seems logical?
They cannot "beat" and adult, but they can make it exceptionally difficult for the adult to acheive their goal and that in and of itself is normally enough http://pix11.com/2015/03/24/kentucky-kids-use-karate-to-keep-stranger-from-taking-their-brother/
Normally enough? There are far more successful kidnappings than news stories about kids fighting off abductors. These happy endings seem pretty rare.
"Normally enough" in the sense that this is what you will be training them for not that it is the most common outcome - sorry should have made that clearer
Are you working on another self defence course? My thoughts. Forget about self defence until you have enough of an understanding. Getting your answers here isn't going to fill the gaps in your understanding.
A 12 year old can grab you by the windpipe and squeeze, so I don't see why they can't fight off (for want of a better phrase) an adult on some occasions.
There are lots of things that CAN happen, but are fairly unlikely. Certainly much too unlikely to be relied upon. Someone such as a twelve year old trying to fight off a much bigger attacker MIGHT get lucky and inflict enough pain to give them an opportunity to escape, but the odds on it happening are quite slim. They would be much better advised to just run away if possible, or make a lot of noise if not. Teaching a child to try to grab their assailant's windpipe is a bad idea, because you'd be encouraging them to put their faith in something that will almost certainly fail, and which would simply keep them in a place where they don't want to be - i.e. where their attacker can easily get hold of them.
No, this was just a conversation starter!! I get my answers from the wall street journal!! FYI: I do have over 20 years of Self-Defense training/Instructing and I was a former LEO!
Yet you ask if a child under 12 years old can fight off an adult. You're 30 or so years old aren't you? So you started self defence training and instructing when you were 10. Is this correct?
Indie12, your LinkedIn page states 7+ years defensive tactics, so hardly the 20 years you claim. The page also states you've been a defensive tactics instructor since 2004, which is 14 years. We have a contradiction it seems.
And even if someone does something for 20+ years, it doesn't mean, that he does it good/ right. You can do things wrong for ages, or be bad at anything after ages as well. Only because someone is keeping dogs for 20 years, it doesn't mean he knows anything about them. Same for everything else. (Not saying that's the case here; I don't know him after all)
