Friday, December 23, 2016

Idiots Happen - A Personal Road Rage Story

I had this experience a few weeks ago on my way to work. For the record, my 15-year-old son was in the car with me. Read all the way to the bottom for the defensive lessons in this situation.

I was driving down a 3-lane road which had been partially washed out in Hurricane Matthew. Construction had closed the west-bound side of this road (which I use in the morning), forcing traffic into the center turn lane to get around the work. I was approaching this construction when another driver in a large propane company work truck tried to cut me off from the rear, nearly forcing me into the cones marking the construction zone. I got in front of him, but not without a hard look as if to say, "Dude! What are you doing?!"

Just beyond the construction is a 4-way traffic light. I stopped to wait for the light to go green, and my 'friend' was sitting on my rear bumper the whole time. The light turned green and I proceeded through the intersection with Speedy Gonzalez on my tail. Two miles up the street from that light is the entrance to the campus of the college at which I teach. I turned on my turn signal, and looked into the mirror to see my companion waving violently for me to get out of his way. When I touched the brakes to slow for the turn, the guy nearly drove through me. I pulled into the turn lane as he swerved wildly around me.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. The guy got about 50 feet beyond me and STOPPED in the middle of traffic. For just a second I saw him sitting there before he drove slowly down the street. I expected him to just go on his way. I was wrong.

Instead of resuming his hasty trek to work, he proceeded to a service entrance at the rear of campus and entered the parking area. I watched him as he cruised across the lot toward me. "Here we go," I thought. I told my son to keep an eye on him as I drove through campus toward the Automotive Repair department, which is a gated space. I figured he would be reluctant to follow me into a gated area of campus. Again, I was wrong.

We lost sight of the guy behind a service building. I briefly parked, then turned my vehicle around to watch the gate. Sure enough, the tailgater followed me into a GATED AREA in order to confront me about his problem.

Seeing that this guy had something to share, I rolled down my window, and the conversation went thus:
Me, incredulous: "What are you doing!?"
Him, sternly: "Why did you hit you brakes and try to wreck me?"
Me: "I was pulling onto campus. You would have been fine if you hadn't been riding my tail the entire way here."
Him: "You didn't need to hit your brakes."
Me: " I WAS MAKING A LEGAL TURN! Here's the rub, man. You were in such a hurry that you tailgated me all the way here, and then, given the chance to just go on with your business, decided to follow me all the way here. I do have to thank you, though, for giving me the chance to get your business name and truck number. I'll be making a call to your manager in just a bit."
Him: "You do that. I'll tell them how you hit your brakes and tried to wreck me."
Me: "I'm sure they'll be sympathetic. Just don't leave out the part about riding my bumper for 3 miles."

With that, he threw his truck in reverse and pulled off with a few parting words.

As we were watching the guy leave, my son looked at me and said, "It's all right dad. I could have taken him." 😀

I did call his manager, who apologized for the incident. By the time we were finished with the conversation, he was asking me about self-defense classes.

Lessons from my point of view:
- Road rage is stupid. Don't get involved unless you have no choice. If you are the one initiating the conflict, you have a choice.
- Avoid the conflict. I sent as many signals as I could from the confines of my vehicle that I didn't want to have anything to do with this guy's issues. I drove away from him. I went to a gated area of campus (one that would naturally indicate 'off limits' to outsiders. Only when he was intent on addressing the issue did I engage him verbally (because I certainly didn't want this guy following me to the building where I work).
- Stay cool, even when faced with conflict. My adrenaline spiked, but I was still in control of myself. I didn't let my monkey brain take over entirely. The fact that I focused on letting the guy know that I would be reporting his behavior to his supervisor indicated that I wasn't going to get physically involved with him.

Lessons from his point of view:
- Road rage is stupid. Don't get involved unless you have no choice. This guy had a choice.
- Since he followed me all the way across campus, he had time to think about his choice. He still opted to engage me in open hostility.
- He is lucky that he targeted me to vent his ire. I live in the country. People here take their pride seriously. Had he targeted one of thousands of other inhabitants of this area, he would have been yanked out of his truck through the window and stomped into the pavement. I've read enough books and seen enough stupidity to recognize that this guy was on a rant. I let him vent his spleen and go on with a perceived victory.
- When driving a company vehicle, he is representing his company. The company's image becomes the image he conveys through his driving and any other actions. Suffice it to say that my image of his company is severely tarnished, as are those of the people he nearly wrecked on the road when he stopped traffic.

Road rage has the potential to go horribly, horribly wrong. Sometimes you will find yourself on the wrong side of someone behind the wheel. If that happens, remind yourself to think clearly, don't escalate the situation (shouting at or gesturing toward the other driver), and avoid the other driver - to your own inconvenience if necessary.

Drive alertly, and be safe.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Traffic Stops - An Anecdotal Lesson in Defense

Some years ago, a former middle-school classmate and I found each other on Facebook and discovered that despite being hundreds of miles from our old school, we lived just a few miles from one another in a totally different state. We connected as friends and have kept up with each other ever since.

Just a couple of weeks ago, this friend was traveling through a dark neighborhood miles from home when she was pulled over by what she believed was one of North Carolina's men in blue.

She couldn't have been more wrong.

Read the story for yourself:

DURHAM, N.C. (WNCN) — A man pretending to be a law enforcement officer pulled a woman over Tuesday and robbed her of her purse at gunpoint, Durham County sheriff’s deputies said.
Deputies are urging people to be on the lookout for the robber, who displayed a single blue light on the dark-colored SUV he was driving.
The man used the light to pull the woman over at about 10:30 p.m. on Big Horn Road near Guess Road, then approached the woman’s vehicle brandishing what looked like a rifle, according to deputies.
He took her purse and fled, leaving her unharmed, deputies said.
Deputies launched an “exhaustive” search, but were unable to find the man, who remains at large.
The sheriff’s office said drivers being pulled over by unmarked vehicles can call 911 to verify the vehicle behind them contains a legitimate law enforcement officer.
Durham police recently reported that someone had stolen a number of police uniforms. The robber in this case was described by the victim as wearing dark-colored clothing and a beanie hat, deputies said. He was also wearing a mask. (Source)
First of all, kudos to Kimberly for keeping it together enough to get a decent description of the suspect and not losing her life in the process of one of the worst experiences most of us can imagine. This could have been far FAR worse.

After hearing the story, I immediately reached out to Kimberly for clarification of the media narrative. After some back and forth, I have a pretty good understanding of what happened. I then reached out to two friends: one who is a chief of police in a nearby town (Chief Matthews) and another who is a defense attorney (Mr. Brantley). I wanted to get some perspective on the best way of managing a nighttime stop. What follows are the lessons I gathered from these two friends*.

Both Chief Matthews and Mr. Brantley agree on the following protocols for experiencing a nighttime stop in which the authenticity of the police officer is undetermined:
1 - Reduce speed. Few things in the process of following a suspect vehicle with flashing blues will make an officer twitch like failing to reduce speed. The prospect of a high-speed chase is not a seed you want to plant in the officer's mind.
2 - Turn on emergency flashers. Doing so will alert the officer that you know he is there.
3 - Call 911. The 911 operator should be able to query local police dispatchers to verify that the officer following you is indeed legitimate. If local police are not working the area, the operator should be able to connect you to (or communicate directly with) the state highway patrol for verification.
4 - Drive to the nearest well-lit and decently populated area. Putting yourself in clear visibility of numerous witnesses will be a deterrent to would-be thieves

Chief Matthews also adds that turning on the inside dome light is a good idea as it allows the officer to see that you are not prepping a weapon to be used against him/her once you are on the side of the road.

I further inquired of Chief Matthews about how best to identify a legitimate unmarked cruiser, particularly in the dark. His initial single-word answer speaks volumes:

"Lights."

Chief Matthews went on to say that lights are to a cop what crack is to an addict. There are never enough. A single blue dashboard light (as was used against Kimberly) is rarely if ever the only light in use. Real police cruisers should have, at a minimum, the dashboard light, wig-wag headlamps, and strobe-effect turn signals front and rear. Additional lights might include colored (red or blue) grill lights. Basically, the officer wants the area surrounding the stop to be well illuminated and the cruiser well identified for his safety and yours (to avoid roadside collisions by passing traffic).

As Kimberly was reflecting on the experience with me, she offered a very poignant observation: "I realized we become 'comfortable' in our live's routines. And blue light automatically meant police." She was compelled to stop because her experience with police had become a matter of blind obedience and compliance.

Now, that's not to say we should disobey the directives of sworn officers of the law. However, there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the individual about to confront you on the side of the road is indeed an officer.

To quote Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."

-------------------------------------------------------

* Bear in mind that these rules/laws apply to drivers in North Carolina. Rules in other states may vary. Consult a legal professional in your state for appropriate steps to take under similar circumstances.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Beware the Bad Self-Defense Advice

** I write the following blog with all deference to Mr. Emerson's service to our country. As the son of a 20-year Navy veteran and the father of a United States Army Soldier, I hold nothing but the highest esteem for our serving men and women. This article is, in no way, intended to impugn Emerson's service to this country. **

So the video below popped up in my suggested videos on YouTube today, and I simply could not help myself in posting it here.

There is an abundance of bad self-defense information on YouTube. The typical source of this bad information is usually some guy who esteems himself an 'expert' in self-defense and martial arts (despite having zero credentials supporting the claim) and thus goes about making instructional videos. This video, however, is different. A former Navy SEAL is presenting the information, thus lending implied credibility to its validity.

Further, a somewhat-major news entity, CBN, is presenting the information to its viewers, lending their own credibility to the story. Thus, one would expect that information from a Navy SEAL being promoted by CBN News would be doubly credible and thus highly reliable.

But it's not.

Take 10 minutes to watch this clip from The 700 Club. Then see my analysis below.



Did you see the bad information there? If so, kudos. If not, stick around and let's talk about it.

I want to point out at least 3 major problems with this information, including one thing that will land you in jail so quickly that you won't have time to say, "APPEAL!"

Before I start, I must say that I question the credibility of any 'expert' (SEAL or otherwise) who refers to a long gun as an 'assault rifle'. The term is a media contrivance that is intended to create a sense of fear in listeners and perpetuate a narrative that claims that somehow a weapon with a pistol grip and a barrel shroud is somehow deadlier than its counterpart without those add-ons. A rifle is a rifle. A handgun is a handgun. Trying to differentiate them based on appearance is stupid. Sure it might have been a slip of the tongue on his part, but that does nothing to change the fact that the words came out of his mouth.

Now, back on track.

Problem #1 - The Pen Attack
While I fully embrace the use of a pen for personal protection and totally agree that a steel-barreled pen is superior to plastic, it's worth noting that Emerson's assertion that a plastic pen will break is not exactly accurate. Here are a couple of experiments you can try at home:
1 - take a normal wood pencil. Break it in half, then break each half in half. How hard was the first break compared to the second break? Did it take more effort to break the individual halves? Now try breaking the fourths in half. How much effort does it take? A bunch, actually, due to the necessity of leverage in breaking the pencil. Keep that in mind while we cover point number two.
2 - buy a Bic plastic barreled pen and a watermelon (a pumpkin will also work, depending on the season in which you read this). Remove the cap of the pen (a la Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity apartment scene) and hold it in a point-down grip. Position the watermelon on a surface and stab it a few times. Did the pen snap in half in your hand? If you have a firm grip and about one inch of stabbing length extending from your hand, I'm guessing that the pen held up just fine.

So in a crisis situation where you have to act on the fly to defend yourself, the material from which the pen is constructed isn't really the biggest factor here - actually having the pen in your hand at the time of need is.

After Emerson has decreed the virtue of metal pens, he demonstrates an attack to the eyes with the weapon. Good idea in theory but not in practice. Generally speaking, a victim who is juiced up on adrenaline isn't going to have the accuracy to actually hit a target the size of a quarter. Sure there are exceptions to the general rule of adrenal response, but the abundance of people will have little to no accuracy under stress. Stabbing the eyes will likely fail. Sure it would suck to get stabbed in the face with a pen, but deluding people into believing that the eyes are a viable target under stress is dangerous.

Emerson goes on to say that ribs and kidneys are also good targets. On this point, I totally agree. I would add, however, that the thighs and neck are also target zones that can have the desired effect of inflicting pain and/or debilitating the threat.

Problem #2 - Sacrificial Lambs Limbs
Emerson discusses knife defense, asserting that one should sacrifice, "A limb for a life." This is a neat concept in theory, but I am not at all excited about teaching the prospect of getting slashed to the bone in knife defense.

I have and always will assert that the best knife defense is to keep distance and/or run like hell.

Emerson instructs viewers to wrap a towel around an arm to reduce the degree of injury from trading limb for life. Now, if you are anything like me, you walk around at all times with a towel in your pocket for just such a contingency. And, when faced with a threat, you always ask for time to wrap your arm before the attack begins.

Emerson's tip is one for planned engagements in which both parties - attacker and defender - are acutely aware of the nature of their situation. A home invasion may allow for the towel. So might a violent incursion at work (replacing the towel with a jacket or other material). For a street-level surprise attack, Emerson's tip holds zero value. The victim, finding himself unprepared and towel-less (?) will be quick work for the street predator. Even if our victim has a towel, there is no way to pause the attack and wrap the towel around an arm before being gored to death.

On a good news note, however, that towel will serve the purpose of wrapping your wounds to stem some of the bleeding. So... at least there is that...

Problem #3 - The Fast Track to Prison
Emerson's newspaper idea started strong and then went south in a hurry. For the moment, I will overlook the fact that finding a newspaper, opening it, rolling it up, punching a nail through it, folding it in half, and then bludgeoning your attacker with it is a touch tricky when under attack.

I will assume for the moment that this paper weapon was prepared in advance (which is the ONLY practical possibility here) and that the attack is happening in the home (since no one is going to pack this weapon for trips to the grocery store).

The nail. That is the biggest sticking point (pun intended) with this weapon. Adding the nail does more than just increase the pain factor; it increases the legal liability factor. It shows malicious intent in planning violence. The desired effect of inflicting pain can be achieved without the nail. The presence of a pointy spike simply speaks to the violent mindset of the person who built the weapon - and that mindset will not go over well with a jury of reasonable people.

Someone I knew as a young teenager found some barbed wire in the forest, brought it home, and wrapped it around a baseball bat. His father encountered his 'enhanced bludgeoning device' hiding in his closet, at which time he spirited it away to the garage for safekeeping. What that young man failed to realize at the time was that taking a potential weapon (the bat) and enhancing it to be more lethal (the barbed wire) shows malicious intent, and prosecutors just LOVE intent.

Using a newspaper weapon (with or without a nail) or a bat (with or without barbed wire) implies that the need for lethal force was not required. By using this paper-and-nail bludgeon, the force level scales upwards to potentially lethal levels, not unlike using a knife or a firearm. In the eyes of a jury, you planned, just in making the weapon, to take a non-lethal engagement to lethal levels. Without one hell of a good lawyer and a creative explanation for that use of force, the guilty verdict is all but assured.

On the up side, your ability to improvise deadly weapons will be a particularly handy skill in prison.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *
It is difficult to cull the bad information from the good. It is sometimes easy to fall under the spell of someone whose credentials indicate that they should have a level of expertise - like a Navy SEAL (or an Army Ranger, or a LEO, or a martial arts 'expert') - even for people with years of experience in self-defense-related training. Most (like... practically ALL) of the videos you see online have holes in reliability and practicality. Far too many of them will land you in a prison cell if you apply what you see in them.

I will tell you this: virtually ALL of the self-defense information you find online is unreliable (including what you read on this website) due to the fact that violence is an extremely fluid event. Each attack, while demonstrating certain predictable elements, is unique and requires on-the-fly decision making. Without sufficient training in violence, self-defense, self-defense law, physiological response to stress, and a number of other variables, every guru's video you watch will be incomplete at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Take everything you see and hear with a grain of salt - even what I write here. Watch the videos, train the techniques (in a controlled environment) at length to verify their effectiveness and practicality, and seek counsel to determine the legal ramifications of implementing what you have seen.

If you fail to do any of the above, please remember to say hello to your cellmate Bubba for me... that is assuming you aren't looking for a way to haunt your online guru from the other side.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Violence is What Happens When Self Defense Fails

One of the key issues I face in the realm of teaching self defense is the misconception that self defense equals violence. Given that we are a society that abhors violence of all stripes irrespective of its occasional necessity in our lives, recruiting students for a self-defense class becomes difficult at best and impossible at worst. If people equate self defense with violence, the natural outcome of recruitment is classes with one or two students who, we hope, will stick around for the duration of an 8-week 16-hour course. Avoiding violence is preferable to learning it.

There is, however, a problem with this public perception: self-defense is actually about 98% non-violent. Violence is what happens when self-defense fails.

I assign blame for this perception to the over-zealous self-defense instructors who bill their programs as a pathway to stopping any attacker with devastating techniques. They promote the violent aspects of their course - the knockout blows, the knees to the groin, the shattered eardrums - without acknowledging what actually constitutes self defense - awareness, self-restraint, and the ability to suppress the ego and walk away.

A legitimate self-defense course is going to spend the bulk of its meeting time covering ways to AVOID violent encounters. Regardless of the bunk being spewed by liberal institutions nationwide (here in the US, anyway. My international readers can otherwise inform me if their countries perpetuate a different narrative), there are relatively simple methods to avoiding violence. There are ways to prevent being raped. There are ways to prevent getting your ass kicked. There are ways to avoid being the victim of theft or carjacking. And all of them involve changing - and sometimes restraining- personal behaviors.

So let's talk self defense for a bit. How do we avoid violent encounters? There's really no secret here; it is a simple matter of common sense.

Pay Attention - this is not a particularly complicated subject. Look around wherever you go. That does NOT mean skulk around in a paranoid state all the time. Instead, take occasional quick looks around and behind you as you walk. Don't stare at your phone as you walk. Don't listen to music through headphones as you jog. Of course there is more to awareness than this short paragraph, but these are some simple first steps.

Talk Less - few things will get you in trouble faster than your mouth. Sounding off on someone for what you perceive as annoyances or insults will have a fairly predictable result. Smart-assed comments hurled at others will gain unwanted (and usually hostile) attention. Thus, when that guy takes 'your' parking spot or bumps into you at the mall, keep it quiet and move along. If you find yourself on the wrong side of an aggravated soul who has decided that you have wronged them, just remember that there is no winning in having the last word. Let the bigmouth say what he wants to say and be done with it. The more you talk, the more you run the risk of giving the actual aggressor a self-justified reason to beat you senseless.

Apologize, and Mean It - If you have earned the unwanted attention of an aggressor, apologizing is a legitimate tactic for avoiding potential violence. Men are particularly territorial, so challenges like, "What are YOU looking at, butthead?" are fairly common. Responding in kind is the start of a potentially violent encounter. A better response? "Sorry, man. I just had a long day at work and zoned out. Nothing personal here. Can I get you a beer or something?"

Have Fun, but Control Yourself - I went to college. I know what the party scene is like. I also know that the parties are just as much fun (sometimes more fun) without getting falling-over drunk. Any time you lose control of your faculties, you run the risk of experiencing harmful fallout. This is true for both men and women. Men get sauced and feel inclined to engage in games of social dominance. Women get sauced and become the targets of men who see opportunity in weakness. (An aside: Spare me the lecture about how 'men should not rape'. I agree entirely, but until we live in a world where men do NOT rape, let's exercise some natural protections, shall we?) The obvious solution: don't get sauced. Over-consumption of alcohol is a disaster waiting to happen. I have seen the most austere and respectable people turn into a complete asses when that one glass of wine turned into 4 glasses of wine. Couple that with other people who have been drinking, and the table is set for trouble. Drink in moderation, enjoy yourself, but be ready to leave should others not show similar restraint.

Don't Go Places Where Bad Things Happen - If a place has a history of trouble, why in the world would you go there? There are bad parts of town where I live. I don't go to those parts of town without a damned good reason. I also don't walk through dark alleys. Or go to seedy bars. Or 24-hour convenience stores. Or ATMs at night. Some places just have a reputation for being dangerous. The simple solution is to avoid being there.

Self-defense isn't a physical act. Violence is. A decent self-defense class will include instruction in the nuances of the above topics. A class being billed as personal protection or self-defense that fails to cover these topics is actually a class about fighting. That's not necessarily a bad thing - fighting ability is a valuable skill to possess and a great form of exercise - but it is not true self defense.

If you exercise a few simple habits of restraint in your everyday life, you will find the potential for violence is reduced dramatically. Most of the violent encounters people experience can be avoided. It is the relative minority of events that actually require someone to engage in violent physical defense.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Shortcomings of Run, Hide, Fight®

In light of current national (United States) and world events, particularly given my position as an instructor on a community college campus, I've made it a personal mission of mine to learn as much as possible about active shooter incursions. Early in my career, I was unnerved by the possibility that I could face a possible active shooter in our hallways. The stories of Michael Carneal (Paducah, KY), Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden (Jonesboro, AR), and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (Columbine, CO) were fresh in the news. Teachers in general were looking around their classrooms and trying to determine which students had the highest likelihood of becoming the next mass school shooter.

In recent years, shooters have branched out from public schools, taking their particular brand of violence into areas less affected by violence - office buildings, warehouses, malls, colleges, and dance clubs. In response to this growing trend, government entities have devised response plans that are being disseminated to schools, colleges, and employers of various sorts in an attempt to prepare citizens for the unlikely event that they will fall victim to a rampage shooter. The most popular of these plans is Homeland Security's Run, Hide, Fight® protocol.

If you've not viewed the video for the RHF protocol, use the next 6 minutes to do so:


Seems rather basic, which is just what most people need in the face of mind-numbingly nerve-bending circumstances. The Run-Hide elements of the protocol are basically human nature codified in video. Who needs to be told to run or hide from loud noises and dangerous circumstances? Normalcy bias and 'the freeze' notwithstanding, most people are going to default to running and hiding.

It's worth noting, however, that hiding can be problematic in an active shooter event. History is replete with stories of people who took shelter under tables and desks while active shooters roamed their schools. The small amount of shelter provided by a table or desk makes it inconsequential as a place of refuge. The vast majority of victims in school shootings are students who tried to hide instead of taking to their feet and running.

Where the trouble with this training comes into play, however, is in the 'Fight' element. The simplistic instructions deny every truth about human physiology and indoctrination (usually at the hands of the very establishment that made this video) against engaging in violence. 

The 4 pieces of instruction in the video (at the 4:13 mark) are as follows:
Attempt to incapacitate the shooter. Great advice. How do you do that? Hit him in the head with a chair or fire extinguisher (as the video shows)? What if you have no weapon? How do we go about incapacitating the shooter empty-handed? When is the best time to move in on the shooter? What about the shooter's weapon?
Act with physical aggression. Again, great advice, but what does that mean? Should we become angry? How do we make the shift from sheer terror to brutal aggression? What actions do we take with that aggression? 
Improvise weapons. Good call. However, at what point do we cross the line from defender to aggressor with an improvised weapon, thus putting ourselves at risk of going to jail?
Commit to your actions. What actions? There are no actions specified in the video, so what exactly should defenders commit to? Active aggression, whatever that is? Using our improvised weapons (but to what extent)?

In order to truly affect positive change in the outcomes of active shooter situations, there needs to be more instruction/direction. People will, in the face of stress or confusion, default to the level of their training. For most people, the level of training is pretty much nil.

Certainly it is true that covering every defensive contingency is impossible in a short training video. However, just a little additional instruction would clarify for a self defender what actions (s)he could take to maximize the potential for success.  For example:

Attempt to incapacitate the shooter. Distract the shooter with any material that can be thrown at him. Close the gap between yourself and the shooter while he is distracted. Push the muzzle of the weapon toward the floor or ceiling. Bear hug and tackle the aggressor and strip the weapon from him. Slam elbows into his head to disorient him or relieve him of consciousness.
Act with physical aggression. Hit hard, hit often, and don't stop until the shooter is down for the count. Even if you are shot, as long as you are conscious and mobile, continue to fight. It's your life or the shooter's. Do not give in until you are no longer able to fight.
Improvise weapons. Pencils, pens, chairs, scissors, books, fire extinguishers, coffee pots, eating utensils, and any other object you can hold in your hand is a potential weapon. That hot cup of coffee is quite a weapon when thrown in the face of a threat. Poke, slash, stab, bludgeon, and scald the shooter until he is incapacitated and no longer a threat. When the threat is subdued, cease the attack and wait for authorities to arrive. Vengeance against a shooter after he is down for the count will likely result in charges against the would-be defender.
Commit to your actions. Whatever you do, do it until you cannot do it any longer. If you are going to tackle the threat, do it without hesitation and to the fullest extent of your might. Any reluctance on your part could be deadly. If your only weapon is a pen, attack with that pen until the shooter is down or you haven't another breath to draw. He is there to kill you; turn the tables on him.

People who are told to run and hide but instead find themselves faced with having to fight to survive usually become statistics that anti-gun advocates and news anchors talk about for weeks after a mass shooting. Take the events in Orlando, Florida, for instance. More than 300 people in a club ran or hid when Omar Mateen opened fire on them. More than a third of them became statistics because they were never taught how to fight for their own survival.

Run, Hide, Fight® has its place as basic information, but it is woefully incomplete as a means of reducing the casualty count in a mass shooting event. Does additional 'Fight' training guarantee success? Not at all, but it does give the defender an edge that just might be sufficient to allow more people to walk away from the event unharmed.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Breaking the Rules

I was having dinner with my family this past week at a local burger joint. Since we are a larger-than-average family, there are only a few tables that will accommodate our number, so we were unfortunately (from a tactical/defensive standpoint) seated in the rear of the restaurant near the restrooms and kitchen area.

The public entry doors were both toward the front of the restaurant. One was about 20 feet away leading to the side of the building; the second was at the front of the restaurant about 100 feet away. It is a given that I am going to be looking for the exits and easiest path to safety whenever I enter a public space, and I am going to make sure my family is on board with my plan.

Thus it was that after the drinks were served and our order placed, I asked them about escape routes in the event the place was under threat. They all agreed that we should retreat to the kitchen area and escape through the rear door that we know is there. In a pinch, we could seek refuge in the bathroom, but that preference ranks pretty low since there is only one door and no windows.

"Which bathroom," I asked. That is when our natural penchant to follow rules kicked in. The rules say go to the bathroom that you know is socially expected (especially here in the deeply traditional rural south). However, when our lives are at stake, the rules go out the window.

Are you prepared to break the rules when a life-or-death situation is at hand? At that point, doors that read 'Employees Only' are no longer barriers. Running the stoplight or stop sign to escape the road-raging aggressor is necessary behavior. 'No Exit' signs suddenly don't matter.

We are told from the time we are old enough to speak that there are rules and laws that must be followed for our own well being and the well being of others. By the time we reach adulthood, we have spent the better part of 18 years shaping our behavior to conform to the expectations that others set in the way of rules and barriers. All of that training doesn't just go away in a moment.

The truth of the matter is that we have to directly tell ourselves that it is perfectly OK - indeed, it is necessary - to break the rules in order to save ourselves from harm. It is why when we enter a public space that we must identify not only the public access areas of the building but also the 'hidden' non-public spaces that might be utilized  as escape routes or hiding places.

If you feel like you need someone else's permission to break the rules, then here you are: you have my permission to break the rules of whatever establishment you happen to be occupying should you find yourself in a potentially lethal situation.

In the meantime, train your mind in order to prepare yourself to break out of your socially prescribed role as rule follower. Plot escape routes, determine hiding places, and make sure your loved ones are on board with your plan.

Sometimes breaking the rules can save your life.

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

What Gets Trained Gets Done

I got into a bit of a polite discussion with a very popular tactical training group on Facebook this past weekend. I will refrain from actually mentioning the name of that group for a couple of reasons. First, the discussion ended amicably, and I have no desire to create hostilities where none currently exist. Second, I have even less of a desire to create enemies in the self-defense & tactical training world. I'm a small fish in this pond, and I admit that I have plenty to learn about the topics of violence and personal defense.

In this case, however, I believe I was completely in the right.


The discussion centered on this training video:


I like the technique. I have no disagreement with the actual defensive instruction being offered here. The part of the video I felt compelled to criticize was the way Amber handed the training weapon back to her partner. I posited that training in this way - by actually handing the weapon to the person from whom you just took it - will be replicated in a real-life situation.

Enter the owner of the page, who had posted the video:
"Except that you have to do something with it, and that something will never be what you would do in reality. I've heard this "rule" for years, and I've never seen or experienced it in reality.  
"Training is full of things that you wouldn't want to replicate in an actual violent encounter. The brain is capable of recognizing the difference, despite what many folks will tell you."
The disagreement I have with this post derives from the anecdotal nature of the reply. "I haven't seen it, therefore it isn't a common occurrence." The problem is, of course, is that such behavior happens all the time. And anyone who understands the role of hormones in high-stress situations could quickly tell you that the brain doesn't operate normally during actual violent encounters. Gross motor skills and repetitive response to stimuli will be the order of the day.

I responded to the post by pointing out a couple of popularized examples of the very thing I mentioned happening in live-fire situations (Loren Christensen talks about them in his book On Combat). Here was his response:
"Yes, I've heard of the single incident that Christensen cites. I also highly doubt the accuracy of officers pulling finger guns on suspects. We trained the exact way you describe, for years. Ultimately, I determined no matter what, you are doing something that shouldn't materialize in reality, and I'd simply rather get more reps on the technique.
"As to "what gets trained gets done", I've trained to hit focus mitts for countless hours and reps, punching to the side of my partner's head, always missing them. In violent encounters, I've never had to fight the urge to punch to the side of an assailant's face."
At this point, I figured I would bow out rather than pursue the matter and risk creating bad feelings in a public forum. Again, it is worth noting that this individual is making sweeping generalizations based on individual perceptions of what, "shouldn't materialize in reality."

What we think is real and what is actually real, however, are two entirely different things. This is especially true in violent encounters and human interaction. Most of us are under-prepared for violence. It is not a common, day-to-day experience for us to confront life-or-death situations. As such, what we think happens in violent encounters differs markedly from what actually happens. We can't base our reality on what we expect will occur in a violent exchange.

My son has recently enlisted in the United States Army. This past Memorial Day weekend, we had the opportunity to visit the base and spend a day with our son. We spent a lot of time sitting at tables eating and talking, so I took the opportunity to address this question of 'What Gets Trained Gets Done' with him.

As one might expect, he likened the type of training in the video to what he does in basic training. "We don't do anything we don't want to do in a firefight," he said. "What we do in training is what we do in combat." This is true whether he is in a hand-to-hand or weapons-free situation. They train it the way they want to do it.

When the bullets are flying, the luxury of thinking about what to do does not exist. We are left to the level of our training, and if that training included a disarm followed by handing the seized weapon back to the simulated assailant, that is very likely what will happen under live circumstances.

So what do we do instead of handing the weapon back to our attacker (simulated or otherwise)? I recommend a few things:

  • drop the weapon somewhere that will be difficult for anyone but official parties to retrieve - a mailbox, a drainage sewer, a bank drop slot. You just want to know that your assailant will not be able to reacquire the weapon and use it against you again.
  • if you choose to hold your attacker in place with the weapon (and be careful with this on a legal level; check your local laws), keep the weapon in hand until officials are close. Then place the weapon on the ground and either cover it with something or step on it. Whatever you do, do NOT have it in your hand when police arrive on the scene. Being mistaken for the actual aggressor will likely not end well.
  • carry the weapon with you as you flee to a safe area. There you can call police to help manage the weapon. As before, do NOT have the weapon in your hand when the police arrive to help.
  • hand the weapon to someone who is not the aggressor. This could be a friend, your spouse, or anyone you are with who is not responsible for attacking you. As above, when the police arrive, be sure that the person who received the weapon from you is not holding it when authorities arrive.

So how do you train this kind of approach to disarms? Here are a few tips:

  • alternate between disarming your 'attacker' and being disarmed. At no point do you actually hand the gun back to your partner; it is his/her responsibility to take it from you.
  • practice actually ridding yourself of the weapon. Drop it and cover it with a foot or a trashcan or any object that will secure the weapon in place until 'authorities' arrive. Before the next rep, your partner can collect the weapon from its hiding place.
  • practice disarming your partner and then strategically retreating followed by running away. Once you arrive in your practice safe area, hand the weapon to a third party. He/she can hand off the weapon to your partner or place it on a surface (a table, the floor, a chair) to be retrieved for the next repetition of the exercise.

What you do in training will very likely manifest in an actual encounter. It is way too easy to just thoughtlessly hand your practice weapon back to your uke. This could have dire consequences when things are real and tense and adrenaline-enhanced. Practice it the way you want it done in actual application.

Anything else has the potential to end very very poorly.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Winning Against a Narcissist in a Street Fight

Everything I am about to write is predicated on the assumption that prior to becoming physically engaged with a threat you have attempted every manner of de-escalation and escape in order to avoid engaging in hand-to-hand self-defense. Anything short of a total commitment to avoiding violence is likely to result in unpleasant consequences, either for you, your attacker, or both. If you are complicit in any confrontation that escalates to violence, whatever happens to you on a legal, physical, and/or psychological level is not my fault.

That having been said...

This post will likely be short, sweet, and to the point, because the topic is so simple as to warrant a simple approach that highlights the most basic ways of physically managing violence.

There are 2 basic solutions to the problem of social violence: avoidance and surprise. Whenever it is practical and plausible to do so, avoiding violent encounters ensures victory for the good guy and defeat for the bad guy. We (the good guys) get to go home; they (the bad guys) don't get to victimize us. Makes total sense, and I'm all for that as a means of surviving in the world.

When it comes to actual physical response to a threat - fighting - it is best to use the threat's narcissism against him and to our own advantage. This strategy will be less effective against a process predator (an asocial threat whose purpose is to victimize the person not the property) and more effective against a social predator (who wants to establish dominance and/or improve social status).

The narcissist expects you to think like he thinks and act as he acts. That is, when he considers attacking the person, he sees the person as a head and face. Under such an assumption, that is what he attacks - your head. Rory Miller in his book, Facing Violence, beautifully describes the Monkey Dance. It looks something like this:

  • the aggressor starts with a question - "What are you looking at, asshole?"
  • the 'victim' responds with an equally pithy retort
  • the indulgent parties approach one another
  • there's a significant amount of verbal jousting
  • one or the other players sticks a finger in the other's face and/or pushes him
  • a looping right-handed barroom punch is directed at the finger-pointers head/face

It's oh-so predictable, and in my 20+ years of classroom education, I've seen it happen about a thousand times between teenage males.

So how do you beat the narcissist in this kind of situation? Easy. Don't aim for the head. During the 'Approach' phase of The Monkey Dance, preempt the aggressor's attack with an attack of your own (and, once again, I'm writing this with the belief that you're not stupid enough to be the aggressor. As Marc 'Animal' MacYoung and others have said, "Fighting is what happens after self-defense has failed."). There's a lot to be said about the surprise factor associated with a kick to the knees, a stepping-off punch to the solar plexus, kicks to the nerve centers on the inside of the thighs, or a power-packed round kick to the outside of the thigh.

Your preemptive attack does two things: it confuses the narcissist, who was completely expecting you to swing at his head, and it resets his OODA loop as it forces him to deal with the unexpected stimulus of being unable to walk/breathe normally.

Punching at non-cranial targets is a winning idea anyway, given that the bones in a fist can be easily broken against the solid mass of one's skull.

So when your self defense has failed and you find yourself dealing with a threat who can't be talked down, firing that first strike (and subsequent strikes) into non-cranial targets can give you the edge you need to emerge from the melee victorious.

Hopefully you're never in a place where you have to use a threat's narcissism against him, but if you do, it's best to remember that there is no such thing as a fair fight. Playing by the threat's rules is stupid. Beat him at his own game by violating his expectations.

Monday, April 4, 2016

Rape Culture and Personal Protection

Apparently teaching women personal protection is perpetuating rape culture.  Who knew.

What we should be doing, according to rape culture activists, is teaching men not to rape. We should be making men aware that rape is bad, that no means no, and a woman who is passed out/too drunk to coherently verbalize her objections is to be left alone. Women, in other words, bear no responsibility for themselves; the onus falls to men to prevent rape and sexual assault of women.

Sorry (not really), but no.

Certainly it must be said that rape is indeed a horrific crime, the boundaries a woman sets must be honored, and that a woman who is incapable of verbalizing consent should obviously be left unmolested. I've taught my sons these things, and I include such discussions in my co-ed personal protection classes.

However, numerous organizations declare that teaching women how to recognize dangerous situations and stop a potential threat is verboten. The Southern Connecticut University website lists some Rape Culture Facts. The last example of rape culture listed is, "Teaching women to avoid getting raped."  ThinkProgress declares that women should not have to learn how to protect themselves. It is men who need to learn not to rape.

How utterly stupid.

Before I explain that statement, let me be clear:  Men, rape is evil. It is arguably the worst evil you can perpetuate on a woman. If you rape a woman, you deserve whatever punishment is meted out, either by the system or through 'social' justice. Ultimately, the responsibility to NOT rape a woman falls to you, Sir, not to her.

Now, on to explanations.

As a rational adult, I know my limits and do my best not to exceed them. I don't go into places where I know the potential for danger exists. I don't drink so much that I lose the ability to control myself and my faculties. I don't purposely say things that may very likely result in getting my ass kicked. I pay attention to my surroundings so I can identify trouble before it affects me.

So which of those personal responsibilities is seen as objectionable? And why would one object to teaching people - male and female alike - such skills?

Personal safety is the domain of every human, gender notwithstanding. Every human is endowed with the inalienable right to life (and the protection thereof) irrespective of gender. Unfortunately, defending life effectively isn't an ability with which we are born, so the skill must be taught. A self-protection class is not just an anti-rape class. Personal protection delves into the psychological elements of criminal behavior, knowing one's surroundings (situational awareness), effective physical and oral communication, and, yes, hand-to-hand defense.

When a woman takes a personal defense class, she's not just protecting herself from a potential rapist. She is protecting herself from being a victim of theft. Of carjacking. Of kidnapping. Of sexual assault. And yes, of rape. No one complains when men learn these skills; such scorn is reserved solely for women (and men who teach them).

Further, the rape culture activists are quick to point out that misogyny and objectification of women shape societal attitudes that will result in their (women's) victimization. Women are disempowered by males' disparaging view of women, which perpetuates rape culture.

So the response to this problem is to place the responsibility to prevent rape solely in the hands of men?  We should hand the power of prevention to the very people who created the problem to begin with as opposed to empowering women with a set of skills that will serve to protect her not only from a potential rapist but also from a number of other existential threats in their lives? Surely I'm not the only one to recognize the logical disconnect here.

Imagine the reaction of a self-empowered male who chooses to attempt to victimize an empowered woman - a woman who has learned to communicate assertively and effectively, recognize trouble when it rears its head, and use her intelligence and immediate environment as a means to defend herself. Imagine that this man finds that the woman he intended to victimize is instead a well-prepared self defender who strikes fast, strikes hard, and strikes often.  Perhaps once he recovers from the physical trauma of his failed attempt at victimizing a woman he'll be less inclined to harm women in the future.

Here's an uncomfortable fact of life: bad people exist. They have always existed and will continue to exist until we as a species go the way of the dinosaur. No amount of education, petitioning, demonstrating, or wishful thinking is going to change the fact that humanity is infected with those who seek to do harm to others.

And while we're waiting for the rapists to learn to not rape and men to treat women with the respect they deserve, women can learn to put potential threats in their place. If/When the Utopian land of Rainbows and Gold Trimmed Unicorn Farts arrives and humans no longer victimize one another, I'll be glad to hang up my gloves and stop teaching. Until that time, I'm going to continue to encourage women (and men) to seek out competent instructors and learn to protect themselves from the uglier side of humanity.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Personal Defense, Adrenaline, and You

Think about the last time you were scared - I mean REALLY scared. Think about the sequence of events that led up to your being terrified, and then think about what happened afterward.

Got it?  Good.

In the fall of 2003, I was involved in a car accident that naturally scared the hell out of me. A transfer truck (tractor trailer, big rig, whatever. It was HUGE!) turned right from the left lane of traffic - right over me and my Mitsubishi Mirage. I remember hearing glass shatter and the sound of screeching tires (as I was dragged sideways), and I recall my vision zooming in on the rig's passenger door. Everything else is a blur.

When I got out of what was left of my mangled car, I had difficulty standing, forming coherent speech, and focusing on my surroundings.

Adrenaline and cortisol. What a rush!

Under the stress of a violent encounter, our bodies will respond in a very predictable way - our vision narrows, our hearing becomes rather selective, and our fine motor skills disappear.  This hormonal cascade and its subsequent physiological effects beg the question: why do we spend an inordinate amount of time in 'self-defense' classes learning how to perform all sorts of intricate wrist grabs, joint locks, and technical maneuvers?

Want to try a quick experiment*? Go outside and sprint down the street for 30 seconds. Then turn around and sprint home. Flat out as hard as you can. As soon as you are back in your front yard, try dialing your home number on your smart phone.

If you are like normal people, you will find yourself needing to take several deep breaths to slow your heartbeat before you can even unlock your phone much less dial it. Even if home is the first of your speed dial options, dialing the number is going to take strict focus and concentration.

Now, to see the difference, do the same sprint as above, but this time throw a jab/hook/knee combination as soon as you get back to your yard. Yeah, you will be sucking wind when you throw the combination, but throw the combination you will.

In a threatening situation, your body reacts similarly to the sprinting experiment. Your heart rate will accelerate rapidly and your body will experience a hormone dump as cortisol and adrenaline hit your system. The big difference, of course, is that you will not have the luxury of taking a few deep breaths as your attacker is carrying out his crime. Your survival will depend on your ability to perform under the restricting effects of stress-induced loss of motor function.

I mentioned in Hick's Law and Self-Protection that I teach one defense for a haymaker (which suffices as a defense for a hip tackle, a single-hand lapel grab, and a bunch of other attacks). That defense is essentially to jam a shuto (chop) into the striking arm and another shuto into the clavicle/neck area. Basically, I'm engaging in a gross motor movement (stick your hands out).

And it works incredibly well. Not because it's fancy, but because it is a movement that doesn't require fine motor skills.  Take an alternative defense for example: the threat throws a bar-room haymaker, so the defender ducks and deflects the punch. Now behind the attacker, our defender grabs the attacker's wrist, jams an elbow into the attacker's arm, and drives him to the floor, at which point the defender uses wrist and arm control to subdue the attacker.

Or, as I like to call it, BS.

In a real threat situation, particularly for a defender without significant experience in violent encounters, everything after ducking the punch is going to be a hodgepodge of jumbled movements that will likely precede his getting his ass kicked. Big movements like ramming hands into an attacker's body or launching a knee into his nads (or bladder, or abdomen) are going to be far more practical than the nuanced wrist locks, finger-grabs, eye jabs, and nerve strikes.

While we are on the subject, it is worth noting that small targets are going to be really REALLY hard to hit under stress. The solar plexus might be a great target, but under the effects of stress-induced hormones, hitting it will take a remarkable amount of luck. Same is true of small-point targets like the eyes and nerve meridians. A skilled martial artist with years of training might be able to hit those small targets under stress, but someone who takes a 16-hour self defense class will probably not be as successful

In self-protection situations, it is imperative to train in gross-motor movements. Those responses are going to be the most effective by virtue of their simplicity and 'bigness'. Intricate joint manipulations and small-target strikes are going to be difficult (if not impossible) unless the threat screws up and gives you a 'gift' in the form of a tactical mistake.

As I mentioned in Our Top 4 Human Weapons, I focus on 4 big movements with my novice students: hammer fist, palm heel, elbow, and knee. These are natural weapons that do not require a lot of nuance in their use. Even the most inexperienced student can graduate from never throwing strikes to brutalizing a striking shield within a few classes. We even create a chaotic situation in which students have been worn down physically (simulating stress) and then required to throw repeated strikes at a striking shield while the instructor yells at them like a drill sergeant. Every time, students manage to drive solid strikes into the shield.

Under the stress of a violent encounter, big movements win.

*Consult your physician before engaging in any rigorous physical activity.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Transitional Spaces and Self Protection

Some places are just more dangerous than others. That's a fact of life. The good news is that most of us are smart enough to avoid places that elevate the likelihood of our asses being beaten or our stuff getting stolen.

There's an alleyway just about a block from my happy little house in modern suburbia. My wife's place of employment is just across the street from this alley. At the opposite end of the alley from her workplace is a parking lot in which a rape, a near sexual assault, a physical assault, and numerous verbal altercations have occurred. The place is a well-known area for potential trouble, especially when the presence of a basement pub is taken into account.  Because... drunk people.

Suffice it to say I don't use that alley, and I don't hang around in that parking lot. It is an easy place for me to avoid because I live here and know the area. I know about that lot's past and the potential danger it presents.

However, since I don't spend all of my time in my own hometown (and I'm betting you don't either), it is important that I develop a strong understanding of where I should and should not go when I travel beyond the range of my familiar area. The same sorts of dangerous places in my familiar areas are probably dangerous in other cities and towns as well, so I can apply a set of rules across all places I happen to travel.

Some of the advice that follows will be painfully obvious; some not so much; try not to let the obviousness of some parts detract from your investment in the article. Simple reminders like this article can be life savers under the worst of circumstances.

The primary concern, of course, is to maintain a high level of awareness that will ultimately enable you to see trouble before it finds you. Beyond that, it is worth taking the time to absorb the information below to better prepare yourself for the likelihood that you will find yourself in unfamiliar and dangerous territory without sufficient background knowledge.

Transitional Spaces
A transitional space (or danger zone, or high-crime area - whatever verbiage you use) is anywhere a criminal has the means to surprise a potential victim, carry out a crime, and rapidly escape from the scene. Often the space is one where the victim is naturally distracted and/or hemmed in. Given that crimes within such areas are typically asocial in nature (meaning the criminals involved prefer few to no witnesses), transitional spaces provide cover from which the threat can emerge and into which he can disappear.  Here are some examples of transitional spaces:

  • alleyways
  • sidewalks
  • parking lots
  • parking garages
  • ATMs, especially walk-up ATMs
  • entryways/exits
  • elevators
  • stairwells
  • hallways
  • public restrooms
  • any blind rear of a building
  • any 24-hour/convenience store
  • gas stations
  • any remote and/or dark location


So just avoid all of those places. Right?

OK. Not so much, but it stands to reason that we should avoid them to the greatest extent possible, especially when we are outside of our familiar areas. When life demands that we enter a transitional space, we do so with a heightened sense of preparedness and awareness.

Managing a Transitional Space
Some transitional spaces can be maneuvered simply by traveling in numbers. Sidewalks, parking lots, hallways, and entryways/exits are good examples of transitional spaces whose power is diminished when you move through them in a group.

Parking Lots
Sometimes navigating a parking lot or parking garage alone is unavoidable. Working late, shopping (particularly in winter, when the sun goes down much earlier in the evening), and evening activities quite often necessitate maneuvering dark parking lots that are rife with potential for danger. When walking through a parking lot alone, consider the following:

  • park under a light if you know you will be returning in the dark. Asocial predators hate being illuminated.
  • walk 6-8 feet from the rear bumpers of parked cars. Doing so increases the depth of your line of sight between vehicles, allowing for more reaction time to a threat
  • carry a small pocket flashlight. It can serve as an improvised weapon, a distraction, and a way of illuminating the dark spaces between cars.
  • do NOT check your phone messages while you walk. Keep your head up, eyes probing the darkness for potential trouble, and ears tuned to the sounds around you
  • use your key fob only when you are within visual range of your car. If you need to locate your car with the fob, press the 'lock' button to sound the tone.
  • once you are in your car, lock the doors, start the car, and go
  • if you have to unload groceries/packages into the vehicle, alternate between moving bags and looking around. Pay particular attention to anyone who seems to just be loitering in the parking area without an apparent sense of purpose
Parking lots seem to be the most prevalent transitional space for victimization. You are well-served to be dubious about anyone who approaches you in transition from building to vehicle or vice versa. The same is true of our next transitional space.

ATMs
ATMs are always a tricky defensive spot. The closest ATM to my house is next to a convenience store near the rear of the building (thus exponentially increasing its danger as a transitional space).  I never go to that machine at night, and during the day I am sure to bring someone with me to act as a lookout for trouble. It is not particularly difficult to recognize your standing as a high-value target at an ATM: users who are distracted by a screen, their wallet, and their cash are easy to assault and rob.

If you must visit an ATM, especially at night, bring a friend. If you are alone, first decide whether the need for cash is worth the risk you take to acquire it, then (assuming you decide to push your luck and withdraw cash) keep your head on a swivel the entire time you are out of your vehicle.

Stairwells & Elevators
I have never seen a building stairwell that failed to give me reason for concern. Deciding between a stairwell and an elevator can be a 50/50 proposition depending on the area in question. In hotels and office buildings, I lean toward using the elevator. In parking decks, dormitories, and classroom buildings, you could toss a coin to decide which to use more safely.

Elevators are an issue due to the fact that anyone can join you on an elevator, thus creating a captive victim whose escape options are nil. I'm reminded of the elevator scenes in the movies Jack Reacher (see video below; skip to 6:13) and Batman Begins, as well as the real-life episodes involving Ray Rice and Elisa Lam. The elevator proved to be a confining space that led to the eventual downfall of the victims. At least on a staircase there is the option to retreat; no such luxury exists in an elevator.


If you find yourself on an elevator with a stranger, do not let that person stand behind you or beside you. Personally, I lean against the side wall of the elevator car so that anyone who joins me is in front of me in plain view.  If you are confined in the elevator with someone who puts off bad vibes, hit a button and exit the car. There's no shame in bailing, even if it seems rude to do so. I'd rather you be rude and wrong about his intentions than polite and right about his intentions.

As far as staircases go, keep your eyes up - not looking down at your feet - and look to the next landing before leaving the one you are on. Every step between you and a waiting criminal is more room for escape should necessity dictate a hasty retreat. Being able to see him from a landing below or above where he's waiting gives you an edge for escape.

Public Restrooms
I have a long-standing dislike for public restrooms (beyond the obvious revulsion for their lack of cleanliness). I do not mind so much the single-occupant restrooms with solidly-locking doors; it is the multi-stall restrooms with open traffic flow that are a problem.

As a general rule, you should always make a mental note of the people in a restroom when you enter. Who is doing what? Does anyone seem to be just idling with no obvious sense of purpose? Is that one guy taking too long to wash his hands? People who seem to be just hanging around the restroom should make your watch list. I'm not implying that such people are trouble, just that it is better to know who is where.

I prefer to use the locking stalls exclusively since they eliminate the chance that I will be surprised by someone in the middle of my 'business'. It would be fairly difficult to focus on defense were I attacked mid-stream and forced into defensive mode with certain *ahem* appendages *ahem* exposed, Having a locked door at my back severely reduces the potential for such awkward attacks.

Before exiting the stall, I take a quick look under the door to see if anyone is lingering close to the entrance to my stall. It is not specifically indicative of a threat (how many times have dads waited outside of a stall for their young child to finish up?), but it is definitely worth giving your attention.

Convenience Stores
24-hour stores, convenience stores, liquor stores, and any other quick stop type of location is a target-rich environment. Spending at such establishments is done largely in cash, which makes for a high-value heist to any criminal ne'er-do-well.

Managing a convenience store-style situation is a matter of being on higher alert for the duration of your visit. When you walk into the store, know exactly what you want, pick it up, pay, and go. The time it takes for you to decide between Snickers and Milky Way could be the time that some desperate person makes his move.

Should a dangerous encounter occur while you are in the store, hopefully your threat response skills are up to or above par. Can you safely move away from the threat? Is the threat including you in the situation (is he robbing you and the store, or is his focus on the store only)? Are you far enough away from the threat that exiting the store is viable? Can you lock yourself in the restroom? Is cover/concealment available?

This specific defensive situation will be very fluid and you'll need to act with great care and discretion (which will be difficult under the circumstances). As usual, your awareness and attention to detail will likely be your first line of defense.

Gas Stations
Pumping gas leaves us in a particularly vulnerable position for robbery:  we're out of our car; distracted by getting the pump started; and then (usually) fixated on the purchase screen, mindlessly watching the numbers tick by. Few things say, "Rob me!" more than blind fascination with a digital screen.

Criminals see very profitable opportunities in our distraction from the world while pumping gas. Recall the DC Sniper event from the early 2000's when Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammed sniped people while they pumped fuel. The event terrorized the DC area for several weeks (in addition to their southern rampage in areas as distant from DC as Texas and Louisiana).

Who would believe that pumping gas could be so dangerous.

As usual, the best defense against becoming a victim is awareness. Granted, there is little that could be done in the face of such a situation as the DC Snipers, but there are practical steps that can be taken to minimize the likelihood that you will be victimized.

First, it is always a good idea to get a good idea of who is where before getting out of the car. Take particular care to note anyone who is near the pump you will be using (or if there are cars with no one near them). As much as it is possible, I use pumps that do not have users opposite of where I am.  If that preference is unavailable, I make sure to look at the user of the pump next to me and greet him/her with a friendly, "How ya' doin'?" Just that small move lets the person know that I recognize his/her presence and I am not afraid to speak out.

When you do exit the car, do NOT leave your keys in it. Close and lock the doors and keep your keys in a pocket. It is a grand invitation to a thief to see an unoccupied vehicle with the motor running or music thumping while the owner is distracted by a the numbers on the pump.

Which brings us to the next point: we must get our eyes off the screen. Occasional looks are fine to keep track of the purchase, but watching the numbers tick from $0.00 to $XX.00 isn't necessary. Look around while pumping. Is anyone approaching? Anyone watching me a little too intently? Be sure to move around to observe any blind areas (like the opposite side of the pump or the opposite side of your vehicle).

When you are done pumping fuel, take a last glance around as you unlock your driver-side door. Get in and go.

Other Areas
Blind Rear of a Building:  This is going to be absurdly obvious, but the rear of any building, particularly at night, is fraught with danger. Unless you are driving a big rig making a delivery, the rear of a building should be very low on your list of places to go. We have a Salvation Army store not too far from home in a questionable part of town. Their donation drop-off area is behind the building. It stands to reason that when we donate stuff to the store, we travel in numbers and keep a constant eye on our surroundings.

Alley:  If you are unfamiliar with an area, any alley is suspect. Skip it and take the long way around a building.

Other Dark Areas:  If there is low visibility for you, there is low visibility for everyone, and criminals know this. If you are alone in a dark area, job #1 is to get out quickly. I've read stories about women who were followed while walking on a dark sidewalk and attacked when they reached their car. If you are prone to stargazing, late-night parking with your lover, or just wandering around darkened streets, have a solid plan on how you intend to extract yourself from potentially deadly situations.

In Conclusion
While most of what is written above makes it seem like we should just stay in our homes, gird ourselves with body armor, and strap on the M4. Not true. While there are considerable dangers that lurk beyond the walls of our homes, we should not allow the potential for violence to dictate our behaviors.

If you have the proper mindset when leaving home - one of careful attention to your surroundings and readiness to act should things go wrong - then the danger is already mitigated. Live your life, but live it in condition yellow.

Friday, February 26, 2016

When Does Self-Defense Begin?

Let's discuss another indomitable truth in self defense:  Reaction is always slower than action.

In the case of the unexpected attack, it logically assumes that the defender is going to find him/herself on the reactionary side of the equation. It is, after all, a defining feature of a surprise attack - that you never see it coming in the first place - which is why situational awareness is paramount.

But what about the attacks that you DO see coming? That stranger who is following you down the dark sidewalk? How about that guy coming at you in the parking lot? This is where my advocacy for preemptive self defense comes into play.

Let me preface the rest of this blog with the following disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Nothing in this post (or any other post on this blog) is intended as legal advice - advice that should logically be sought from a qualified and certified legal professional. If you take my advice as legal counsel, then you've made a mistake for which I and mine are in no way responsible.

OK. Now that we've got that out of the way...

Preemptive defense is just that - striking before being struck. It's employed only when other attempts at deescalation have failed or are not viable options. Let's discuss this idea anecdotally:

Jane is minding her own business as she walks from her office building to her car parked in the adjoining parking deck. As she's approaching her car, she gets that tingle of perception up her spine. She turns to see a black-clad man staring at her and tailing her closely.

Jane stops in her tracks and turns to face the approaching man. She puts her hands up in a defensive ready position (hands at chest height, palms out) and takes a ready stance with her feet. She loudly demands, "Stay back!"  The man hesitates briefly, then resumes his approach, albeit more cautiously.

"I'm telling you to stay back! Don't come any closer!"  No change in the aggressor's gait or approach.

As he gets within Jane's predetermined personal bubble, what is her responsibility as far as defending herself is concerned? Must she wait until this person actually shows an aggressive action (grabs, slaps, or punches her) before she initiates her defense? Does she need to see a weapon before acting?

In my estimation, no. It would be reasonable for Jane to believe that her safety is threatened. Her initial demands that the man stop approaching her have been disregarded multiple times. She has few remaining options under the circumstances (run, scream for help). Once it is clear that he has no intention of changing course and avoiding her, it's time for Jane to employ some defensive response.

Hopefully Jane is carrying a force multiplier of some sort that will be in play, be it pepper spray, a stun gun, or some other tool that will make clear to this person that he's picked the wrong woman to be his victim.

No matter the response, Jane is in no way obliged to wait until an aggressive action has been made against her before she employs her defense.

And that is the thrust of the anecdote. Sometimes striking first IS justified when there is an expectation that physical harm is imminent. That is when self defense begins - when there is a reasonable assumption (though the definition of reasonable is a floating target, I assure you) that physical harm will result if no action is taken.

There are a thousand variables that can be taken into account when discussing the concept of preemptive defense, but it all boils down to one simple concept: you believe - and you can explain why you believed - that your safety was in imminent danger when you acted defensively. That belief can derive from direct observation: you saw a weapon, for instance. The belief of imminence can also be assumed by inference: the threat is approaching directly, not responding to verbal prompts ("Can I help you," "Stop," or, "Stay back," for example), and/or staring down his apparent victim.

The level of preemptive defense is a much trickier situation. One must be ready to employ a degree of defense that is justifiable when authorities start inquiring about the sequence of events that led up to the defensive encounter. It is difficult (but not impossible) to justify drawing down on a threat and punching 9mm holes in him without first seeing a weapon. This is when it is advisable to have a nice long conversation with an attorney about what constitutes justifiable defense under a variety of circumstances.

Something to consider in all of this is disparity of force and disparity of size. If one were to think about it linearly, the approach would be Force +1. It works something like this:  the threat is empty handed, so the defender uses a non-lethal defense (pepper spray, stun gun, etc.). The threat has a stick or a club, so the defender uses a more lethal response (a bladed weapon, for example). And so on.  When the threat's force continuum is at its peak, it stands to reason that the best defensive response, absent any opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge, is to shoot him before he shoots you.

Disparity of size, which is the affirmative defense employed successfully by Officer Darren Wilson in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO, is easier for women to employ than men. A 185-lb man confronting a 125-lb woman represents a considerable size disparity that would allow for a preemptive defensive response with justification. However, men can employ the disparity of size justification under similar circumstances, as was seen in the Ferguson case. Wilson's reported weight at the time was 210 lbs to Brown's 290. Both men were the same height (6'4") but Brown had the weight advantage in addition to positional advantage (standing vs. the sitting Wilson, who was in his cruiser when the melee started). By his estimation, Wilson felt that disparity of size was justification for shooting Brown.

Self defense can be a very fluid and unpredictable event, exacerbated by the fact that stress-induced hormonal dump can muddy the decision making process. One should not, however, buy in to the belief that self defense is exclusively a responsive event. Upon the assessment that a threat is imminent and grievous bodily harm might result if no defense is employed, it is a perfectly reasonable act to defensively strike first.

And that is when self defense begins - at that final assessment that harm is imminent, not after the threat has initiated his attack.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Our Top 4 Human Weapons

To keep from over-complicating the process of personal defense, it's better to remember that less is more. Reflecting back to my post on Hick's Law, teaching too many responses to any given situation decreases the overall response time of the defender. Thus, it becomes important to teach as few techniques as are necessary to offer sufficient defense under a given threat.

Let's extend that same concept to human weapons - that is, the empty-handed weapons we have on us by virtue of our anatomy. Our karate dojo teaches an extensive array of kicks and strikes ranging from a simple jab to flying double kicks. From those basic techniques, one can derive thousands of variations that are practiced over and over until they become second nature.

Unfortunately for a self-defense student, learning that much material in a 16-hour series of classes is impractical and, frankly, ineffective.

Here are the basic self-defense strikes that I teach to students. Sure there are variations on these strikes, but exploration and practice will allow individual students to discover them on their own when they are ready. Personally, I just want to give them what they can use in and effective and practical manner within moments of learning them.

Hammer Fist
Teaching students to punch is tricky at best. The biggest concern with teaching a traditional punch is assuring that students are striking with the appropriate part of the fist (the knuckles of the index and middle fingers) to protect themselves from breaking their hands. Further, since most people have a tendency to focus on the head at the sole target for striking, using a traditional knuckle punch is practically a guaranteed trip to the hospital to put the bones of the hand back together.

Instead, I teach my students to make a traditional fist and, rather than striking with the knuckles, hit with the meaty surface opposite the thumb. Using that surface protects the hand from damage and metes out a pretty healthy dose of pain in the process. It is an effective weapon to use on the jaw, the neck, the rib cage, and a number of other viable targets.

When I don a body suit and have students use the hammer fist on various targets, they find it to be a fairly pain-free way of striking. They can really put themselves into a strike and walk away realizing that hitting something isn't necessarily dangerous or painful to themselves.  The only real caveat that must be expressed is that they have to hit with the meat of the hand, not the pinkie finger.  Hitting with the tiniest digit on the hand will be both painful and ineffective.

Palm Heel
I teach this particular strike as a better alternative to the knuckle punch. Simply put, if someone can land a punch on the jaw, (s)he can land a palm strike on the jaw and probably do more damage in the process. As a small aside, the worst bleeding I've ever done in the dojo came from being palmed in the face with a pulled shot. The person throwing the strike tried to bail on the technique, so it landed with only partial power. My nose still went *crunch* and the blood flowed.

The palm heel can be delivered with power or it can be used to push an attacker's chin to break balance. It is also a useful weapon for solar plexus, abdomen, and rib strikes.

Elbow
Elbows are a terrific close-range weapon that can easily follow larger movements. Elbows are less of an initial attack and more of a follow-up strike. For example, a well-placed knee to the groin can be followed with an elbow strike to the head, neck, or back as the attacker doubles over in pain. Elbow strikes also natural follow-ups to wrist-releases.

There are two weapons on the elbow - the two-inch area above the point, and the same space below the point. When I teach the elbow strike to my students, we use both surfaces to strike pads before actually employing the strike against a simulated attack. Using the elbow takes a little more instruction than the palm heel or hammer fist, but once a student has a feel for properly applying the technique, they like its effectiveness.

Knee
Knees are so easy it's almost cheating to tell students to use them defensively. From the time many of us were small children breaking sticks over our knees, we've known that the flat surfaces around that joint are a weapon sufficient to do damage.

The key to knees is remembering that they can be used to strike more than just the groin, which inevitably seems to be the target of choice. Knees are nasty when attacking the inner and outer thigh area, the rib cage (when an attacker is on the ground), the head (also when the attacker is down), and the shoulder/armpit.

That's it. Those are my go-to weapons in self-defense instruction. Adding any more natural weapons to that list just muddies the waters further and only serves to slow the defender's response time.

Keep it simple.