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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.