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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As far as nice, polite, functioning adults in civilized society are concerned, some of the basic tenets of a self-defense course are harder to embrace. I see this same problem play out in every self-defense class I teach: I have to urge - practically beg - people to engage in the act of defensive striking.
One would think that teaching someone - especially a man - to physically strike a target would be the least of my concerns. In fact, it is actually the most prevalent problem, and it manifests in two stages.
The first stage of the problem to overcome is getting students to actually breach the distance between themselves and their training partner. More often than not, students will attempt to stand just out of arm's reach and lean in to strike the uke (the person getting hit). Social etiquette demands that humans maintain an acceptable distance between ourselves and other people; we have an innate ability to determine comfortable social spacing and position ourselves accordingly.
Of course, a predator doesn't give a damn about social etiquette.
So early in self-defense training comes a lesson in violating social norms. As defenders, students have to know and understand that their best defense is going to take place at close range - ranges that normal socially adapted adults are just not comfortable with. Predators have no compulsions when it comes to closing the distance, so students have to train from 'inside the bubble' (our pre-set personal space boundary) in order to more effectively defend themselves.
This isn't the easiest thing to get students to do, so there's a bit of social reconditioning that needs to take place, usually in the form of instructor encroachment (when I put myself in their space intentionally). It has never failed that students cringe when I step inside their bubble and just stand there. My first contact with a new student is usually to grab a wrist. Before the end of the class, the student is comfortable enough with my presence that they allow me to curl my fingers around their neck in a choke.
The social reconditioning is an ongoing process and is repeated in each class. Once the student has gained a degree of comfort working in range, I can begin to address the second stage of the problem.
From the time we were small children, parents, teachers, and other authority figures have told us not to hit one another. Punishments (ironically including spankings) were meted out for any transgressions of this sacred law. Hitting is bad, and most of us have learned this lesson well. Unfortunately, we obey this social rule even to our own detriment.
The first time I ask students to hit me, our co-teachers, or their training partner, the results are very predictable: a timid and half-hearted strike that is usually followed by an apology. The psychological hurdle students must jump in the process of learning to hit another human being is unusually high, and few are the new students who can actually do it the first time out.
For that reason, it takes a bit of coercion to get students to commit to a strike. It's easy with mothers; often it's a matter of telling her, "This man wants to hurt your child." Hell hath no fury, and all. Some men can be convinced to commit to striking with, "This a**hole wants to rape your girlfriend." Sure, it's a bit strong to say that, but it is quite effective.
It is the unattached man and woman who are a bit harder. Whatever the prompt, it has to be something that breaks the hold of their childhood training against violating others.
Interestingly enough, once that first crack forms in their mental wall, its collapse is fairly rapid. I've witnessed students who were completely adverse to hitting a padded uke start with tepid little strikes only to find that, with repetition, they actually enjoy it. A feeling of power that they had not realized they possessed has suddenly found its way into their consciousness. By the time I call an end to the exercise, they almost always ask, "One more?"
There's no such thing as polite self defense when actual physical defense is needed. A lack of commitment in the actual practice is the primary ingredient in the recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, we have been conditioned for our entire lives to play nice and not hit. Breaking past that mental barrier takes time and intentional practice.
