Fighting is Chaos, Learning Shouldn’t Be – Jeff Burger

Maybe I’m a little O.C.D. but I find it very frustrating to see classes or video instruction where the material is just all over the place in topic and or skill level.
My favorite teachers are the ones who organize the material into a logical progression and I strive to do that in my own teaching and training.

There is a temptation for the student to want to learn advanced techniques, the flashy stuff, something recently pulled off in a MMA match or maybe just something new to break the boredom.

Instructors can be tempted too, maybe to show off, prove they are better than the school across town. In some cases, they think it helps with retention.
You shouldn’t worry about Berimbolo Rolls and Flying Armbars when you can’t escape basic positions.
You shouldn’t be worried about spin kicks, trapping and long combinations until your basics are solid.
Can these techniques work? Sure, but they are low opportunity, high risk techniques.

“Don’t fear the man who practices 10,000 techniques, fear the man who practices one technique 10,000 times.”

It irks me to see people drill something just a few times and stop as if they know it enough.

Never be satisfied with how good your basics are, I’m happy to just work my jab for an hour.
There are four levels of competency.

1. Unconscious incompetence – you don’t know even it exist.
2. Conscious incompetence – you know of it but can not do it.
3. Conscious competence – you can do it but have to think about it.
4. Unconscious competence – the skill is hardwired into you.

“You got to know your ABCs to spell SMASH.” CJB

How to organize learning and teaching.

  • Follow the data and statistics of the given arena. Is it street, a weapon, combat sport (boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai … ) ?
  • What are the most common attacks ? What are the easiest, effective, multi-purpose tools ?
  • Organize those individual techniques into topics and prioritize them. (hand attacks, hand defense, leg attack, leg defense, clinch, takedowns, takedown defense …)

For example, in our Ju Jitsu program first thing we teach is something I call “Ju Jitsu Houdini” escapes from positions.

There is a standing holds version (bear hugs, head locks, full nelson … ) and a ground holds version (mount, side control, rear mount….).

My belief is first priority in the ground game is survival, to escape the positions, to free yourself to run, fight, get back on your feet or launch your own ground attack.

Being a good escape artist helps your offense because if the attack fails you are confident you can get out of trouble. Then build your offense armbars, armlocks, chokes, leg locks.

Next, learn to escape those attacks, then to counter their defense, each skill learned is the next priority to learn how to counter.

Climbing out of Hell
Another way I prioritize the material is by starting from the worst case scenario.
When I teach clinch defense for example I start from the opponent has double neck tie, your posture is broken and the knee hits you.
If that didn’t finish you off, learn how to use it for your own counter offense.
Take that theory and apply it to punches, kicks ….
Few things are better for your confidence and your safety then being able to survive worst case scenarios.

Here is a video clip of “Climbing out of Hell (clinch )”.
https://www.facebook.com/333833153339690/videos/vb.333833153339690/936273399762326/?type=2&theater

The Matrix of Discretionary Power – Rory Miller

In modern Western society, we have delegated the enforcement of social rules to a profession. Controlling behavior is no longer the province of a hereditary caste, or the duty of tribal elders or shaman. We have the police.

Individual police officers decide who will be be pulled over for a traffic infraction and who will not; which crimes will be investigated and which will not. Who, in a dispute, will be believed and who will not. This is discretionary power, the power of personal decision. It is and always has been one aspect of rules enforcement, for that matter an aspect of every human interaction. But when wielded by police, discretion can be a hot-button issue.

On a fundamental ethical level, to enforce only the rules one personally agrees with would be the essence of corruption. We all personally approve of and disapprove of different laws. Some see anti-smoking laws as assaults on personal freedom, others as affirmation of public health…and often the exact same people have the exact opposite attitudes depending on whether tobacco or cannabis are the smokable under discussion. When an officer signs on for the job, he or she signs on to enforce the law, not a personal worldview.

But this cannot be an absolute, either. Because at the other extreme we have the Nuremberg Trials and “I was only following orders.”

On the scale between personal corruption and corruption as the mindless enforcer for the state, we have officer discretion.

But discretion happens in the real world— a world of media and voters and interest groups and complicated, emotional, messy human interaction. Discretion happens in a matrix of human interaction, the perceived and written duties of the job, policy, law, moral conviction and, sometimes, survival stress.

First and foremost, citizens say that they want a fair and impartial police service. In practice, people want the opposite. In actual interactions with police, almost universally, citizens want understanding, compassionate and forgiving officers judging them, and by-the-book robots dealing with others. Don’t believe me? How many times have you hoped the police would ticket someone who you thought was driving poorly? And how many times, when you were pulled over, did you think your excuses should be honored?

People fear the police. They are individuals that theoretically have the power of the state behind them. They have belts full of weapons and access to more. In every state’s quest to have a monopoly on violence, the police are the visible representations of that.

Conversely, the police, in the WEIRD* world are controlled by politicians, by the media and in the end, by the citizens. They live and work, especially in the era of the 24-hour news cycle and social media, under a quickly-shifting and seemingly arbitrary standard of right or wrong behavior.

In the interaction between citizens and police there is another factor that flies in the face of our ideals. We can recognize that every dispute, every interaction between two people is different. We have a much harder time accepting that the people coming to solve those disputes, the officers, are not equal. Not every officer understands psychology to the same degree. They can’t all be expected to be fluent in all languages spoken in their district. Some are great shots, some poor. Some are cool under a crisis, some panic. No two officers are the same and thus expecting “fair and equal treatment” is both a practical and physical impossibility.

This is probably the crux of the issue with officer discretion. Absolute lack of discretion is a totalitarian nightmare, where any child who takes a candy bar from a grocery store is branded for life. Total discretion will have officers enforcing their beliefs, not the laws. And there is no happy medium. No place where one can say, “Discretion for X but not for Y” without bad outcomes.

Example: One jurisdiction removed discretion in domestic violence cases. They wrote a “mandatory arrest” law such that, if a domestic violence complaint is made, somebody must go to jail. The people who drafted the law feared that an officer would decide a domestic violence call wasn’t a big deal and would let the abuser stay and the abuser would kill the victim. Fair enough.

But local burglars started calling in domestic violence complaints: “Sounds like there’s a big fight going on at 3643 Sinclair St. Sounds pretty bad.”

The police would arrive and even though all the residents said nothing had happened, and there was no physical evidence of any crime, the officers were required by law to bring someone to jail. One of the very confused people would be taken to jail. The other would leave trying to get enough cash for bail money. And the house would be left conveniently vacant for the burglars who called in the complaint.

Completely aside from the fact that many criminals are masters at manipulating even the best-intentioned rules, have you ever known micro-management to improve human interaction? Writing policy may remove the prejudices and failings of the officer in the field, but only substitutes the prejudices and failings of a bureaucrat who isn’t even present to see, hear and smell that moment.

I see no satisfactory policy answer. Maximizing the discretion of officers allows the people at the scene to make the best possible choice for all concerned. It also, however, clears the way for the stupid, the vain, the power hungry and the cruel to act with a free hand. To remove discretion entirely would require a good policy for every possible situation— an impossible thing to either write or to memorize.

To complicate matters even more, we cannot define a good decision. In the matrix of human interaction, most call those decisions “good” from which they or someone they identify with benefits. When riots broke out after the grand jury decision in Ferguson we saw United States citizens rioting against their own civil rights.

A vocal enough group with vested interests can create a media storm that retroactively turns a good decision into a bad decision. Perfect officer discretion requires not only good judgment and good information, but also the ability to see the future.

The best option, so far, is to recruit the best men and women available, train them to the ultimate degree, have them apprentice with older officers of proven judgment…

That is the ideal, but there are about 900,000 sworn officers in the US alone. Do we have a million perfect people, eager to apply for a thankless, high-stress job? Training is expensive, and an easy thing to cut from the annual budget. New officers apprentice under older officers, and those older officers are people, some good, some bad, some wise, some completely burned out.

To sum up:
The problems with discretion:
Discretion will be misused in some cases
Will be a lightning rod for people who want to call things misuse
Not all officers will have equivalent judgment or skill
The socratic ideal of “fair and equal” is impossible
Officers will be manipulated (but they can learn)

The problems with removing discretion:
Striving for a socratic ideal becomes heartless in the particular
It is inflexible
People will be punished for using judgment
It is reactive to misplaced public pressure— black swans wind up driving policy
Bad people are very good at manipulating systems, and systems are slow to adapt
*Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic

Boundary-Setting and Safety Rules – Kathy Jackson

As instructors, we are in a position of authority over our students. For a variety of reasons, this isn’t always a comfortable place to be, but it’s an unavoidable reality of keeping students safe in groups as they learn to work with deadly or potentially deadly skills.

That authority is voluntary, limited, and temporary.
It is voluntary because our students choose to enroll in our classes. The students who end up in our classes get there because they have made a choice to do that. They have lots of other things they could have done this evening or this weekend, but they chose to rearrange their time to spend it with us. They have lots of other things they could do with their money, but they chose to buy a class from us. We have to treat them with the same respect a shopkeeper would give a customer, because that’s what they are—customers.

Our authority is limited. We can tell them what to do for the duration of the class, in the space or on the range we control. But we don’t have even a tiny bit of authority to tell them what to do outside of class. Unless we do a good job selling our safety procedures and defensive techniques, our students won’t take our ideas home with them no matter how much they paid us to share them. We have to be good salespeople to help our students get the most out of our classes.
Our authority lasts exactly as long as the class lasts. It is temporary. As soon as the class is over, the tables turn. When our students are done with class, they will go home and hop on the internet to tell other potential students about us. At that point, they will have all the power they need to make or break us as instructors. If we provided solid information in a safe and enjoyable format, we’ll be in good shape. If we didn’t, we won’t.

Responsibility and Authority
You may wonder why I began an article about boundary setting and safety rules by talking about our authority as instructors. There is an important reason for that: when we step up to teach students how to use potentially deadly skills, their safety while they learn becomes our responsibility. When we teach students how to use firearms, the shooting range is our range for the entire duration of the class. When we teach in a dojo, the safety of everyone on the mat is our responsibility. That is what being an instructor of defensive arts really means. It means it is our obligation to make sure things go right during class, and it is our responsibility when things go wrong. As leaders and teachers, we absolutely have a responsibility to keep our people safe.

Responsibility and authority go hand in hand. They cannot be separated. We have a serious responsibility to each one of our students, and the only way we can meet that responsibility is to properly use the authority that comes with it.
Exercising authority is not easy for many of us. It does not always come naturally, and it’s even more difficult when our students are also our friends and our peers. These are adults we’re talking about, not overgrown children, and we must always treat them with respect.

Nevertheless, when someone signs up to learn how to defend themselves, they absolutely expect their instructors to provide a safe environment. They want and need us to keep them safe from the actions of other students while they learn. When we use our authority to keep our students safe, we are doing exactly what they have paid us to do for them.

For me, one big key is that many students do not already know how to stay safe inside our specialized learning environments. They may not know how they’re supposed to act on the mat. They may not know edged weapon etiquette. After a lifetime of watching flashy but utterly unsafe gunhandling on the television screen, they almost certainly do not yet have good habits built into their behavior around guns. This means that – big surprise here! – teaching students how to stay safe will be a big part of our jobs. We are not simply enforcers. We’re instructors.
Even those who do already know the rules really appreciate it when we take time to make sure everyone is on board with the same protocols. It creates a much more comfortable learning environment for everyone.

Firearms Safety
Setting boundaries at the outset of a firearms class involves little more than stating the safety rules clearly enough that every student understands them. And yet it’s surprising how easy it is to muff this simple step. We shortchange students by rushing through the safety brief, or by reciting rules without paying much attention to meaning. When we just go through the motions rather than treating it as the serious core of the issue that it is, we prime students to disregard the safety boundaries we’re trying to set.

Here are the universal safety rules understood and used by most defensive handgunners:

  • All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
  • Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
  • Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.
  • Be sure of your target and what’s beyond.

Although many people happily argue for minor variations of these rules, or criticize some specific part of the wording, these core concepts remain the most widely-accepted safety protocols in the firearms community. Deceptively simple at first glance, they contain a hidden world of application that students should understand and take home with them as words to live by. Good instructors help students understand how to apply these rules in a variety of settings.

Beyond these universal rules that apply everywhere and all the time, every range has some rules unique to that facility. Some of these are simple management tools, such as a rule about who can pick up brass and when they can do it. Some provide an added layer of safety in group settings, such as a raised flag that signals when shooters are downrange adjusting targets. Others allow individual shooters to more easily follow the universal rules within that environment; for example, setting aside one particular well-contained area for live gunhandling.

We have class-specific rules for similar reasons:

  • Easier crowd management,
  • Reducing group-specific dangers, and
  • Helping each student more easily follow the universal safety rules inside the class setting.

We need specific rules for class because when we spend time working with firearms in a group of people, we encounter some dangers that we wouldn’t run into if we were alone on the range doing our own thing.

For example, having a lot of people firing at once tends to increase the risk of hot brass landing where it shouldn’t. There are also physical reactions to stressors in class: hot or cold weather, fatigue, dehydration. And, of course, some dangers are increased simply because people work harder at looking cool when other people are around. Class specific rules address these challenges that we encounter within the context of the class setting.

Setting Boundaries – the Safety Brief
As a retired Marine officer once told me, “The usual problem in a safety briefing is, if you don’t explain your reasons, your recruits think you’re stupid – or worse, they think you think they are stupid.” Unlike many other types of boundary-setting, explaining the reasons for the boundaries of our safety protocol tends to reduce student resistance to following them.

Safety briefs work best when all students are present. While we might be casual about students missing other parts of the program, our responsibility to the students means we need to assure that every person knows the rules. For easier time management, we might begin class with less-critical introductory material and go over safety rules after that. This assures that latecomers do not miss the briefing or delay the class while we wait for them to arrive. If we have students who need to step away from the group for any reason, we can ask them not to do so during the safety briefing.

By doing this, we make sure that everyone in class has heard the rules themselves and that each person knows that every other person has heard the rules. This helps set student expectations, and helps reduce nervous fears among newcomers. It also puts us as instructors in a stronger legal position if anything goes wrong during class. There’s little sense in setting a boundary that the intended recipients don’t catch.

Enforcement
But what should we do when students violate the safety protocols? How can we help students respect the boundaries we’ve set?

As one of my mentors, Marty Hayes, was going through law school, he and I would often talk about the things he was learning and how his new knowledge influenced his decisions at his firearms school. Those discussions had a deep impact on the choices I’ve made as I’ve been teaching under my own banner. Probably the biggest effect has been a sharp reduction in how willing I am to let an unsafe student continue on the line after a repeated verbal warning. As a result, I’ve developed a simple set of procedures that help me be sure I’m not shortchanging the other students – the ones who paid for and expect to learn in a safe environment.

To more easily show how this works, let’s look at a common, and usually inadvertent, rule violation: the student has allowed their gun to point at anything other than the target and its safe backstop. This happens more often than untrained people would expect, and it’s a non-trivial concern. Although it doesn’t always mean another person ends up directly in front of the muzzle, it certainly can mean that. In any case, it’s a behavior that we must correct immediately if our class safety rules have any meaning.

We start enforcement early, before any other person could be in the line of fire. This means we notice what the students are noticing, and draw their attention back to where they are pointing the gun whenever they lose track. Crucially, students must develop the habit of constant muzzle awareness. Helping them develop that habit will often preclude the need to correct them later, and certainly helps maintain student safety throughout the day.

Important Note! The sequence below begins with the assumption that the student has simply allowed the muzzle to drift, but has not pointed the gun directly at anyone else. If they did directly point the gun at another student or an instructor, even if they did not mean to do so, we go straight to step three.

Inadvertent offense / Step One
Verbal intervention: “Muzzle!”
Physical intervention: Grab and control muzzle direction if student is within reach.
Instruction: “Please keep the gun pointed at the berm. [Explain how to do whatever task they were doing while keeping the muzzle pointed at the berm.] Do you understand?”
Observation: For at least the next few drills, stand in a place where it’s easier to physically intervene if needed.

Repeated offense / Step Two
Verbal and physical intervention.
Gather information: “Do you understand what just happened?” (LISTEN to the answer.)
Verbal warning: “[Name], I like you and don’t want you to get hurt or to hurt anyone else. So if this happens again, you will have to sit down during the next drill. Do you understand?”
Inadvertent offense with immediate danger OR Repeated offense after warning /

Step Three
Verbal and physical intervention.
Unload gun and verify that it is unloaded.
Gather information: “Do you understand what just happened?” (LISTEN to the answer!)
Issue first consequence: “Okay. [Name], because I like you and don’t want you to get hurt or to hurt anyone else, I need you to sit down and think about what you just did for a few minutes. Take a break, get a drink of water, get yourself back together. You can rejoin the class in [15 minutes, 30 minutes, after the next drill].”
If appropriate, add: “I know you’re upset.” Acknowledge the sting without erasing it.
Repeated or willful offense with immediate danger / Step Four
Verbal and physical intervention.
Unload gun and verify that it is unloaded.
Gather information: “Do you understand what just happened?” (LISTEN to the answer!)
Issue final consequence: “Okay. Because I like you and don’t want you to get hurt or to hurt anyone else, you’re off the line for the day.”
If appropriate, add: “… but you’re welcome to stay and watch the rest of the class.” If they are not welcome to stay and watch the remainder of the class, call a class break so that you can supervise them as they pack up their things. Never allow them to pack and leave without supervision.

Discussion Points
None of this is pleasant, but it can be done in a pleasant way. It’s best to stay calm and professional throughout, even if the sequence ultimately ends with dismissing the student from the class.

Always unload the student’s gun and be sure it is unloaded before you start issuing consequences. This definitely reduces the pucker factor in cases where the student does not take the consequence in stride.

Working as a line coach, I once had to throw a really nice, really sweet old lady off the line. It’s easier when they’re jerks. She wasn’t. She was a good person doing the best she could. But I’d been standing with my hand two inches from her gun hand for nearly an hour, and during that time I’d had to redirect the muzzle every single time she came off target because she just wasn’t aware of what she was doing with it. Talking did not fix it, nor did my repeated physical intervention. She just wasn’t able to absorb the lesson in the time we had available.

That’s the key, by the way. If you get as far as step one with anyone, then for at least the next little while, you should stand next to them with your hands poised to immediately intervene. Physically step in as soon as it’s needed and stay there as long as needed. When you see a trainwreck coming from someone who inadvertently violates a safety protocol, simply don’t let them get to the next step, and especially not to step three. Failure to stay on top of early indications is likely to result in someone getting a gun pointed at them … or worse.

Because I had taken such complete control of this woman’s actions while she was handling the gun, at no point did the muzzle actually cross another student, but the students on both sides of her were very uncomfortable with what was happening. She was also taking 100% of my attention, which is inherently unsafe even when other coaches also have eyes on the line. Having her put her gun down felt like giving up, but we’d reached the end of what we could do within the limits of the class and the resources we had available. And that was it. She had to simply watch the rest of the drills without shooting.

Although setting and enforcing boundaries isn’t always fun, it’s an important part of the job we do as self-defense instructors. When we set the boundaries clearly and enforce them early, we can help our students stay safe while we teach them how to protect themselves from danger.