Guest Article – Page 14 – Conflict Manager

Beware the Survival Response – Jordon Tabor

It’s dark. The area is secluded. No one can really see or hear you, but this is the quickest path home. If you’re lucky, the area will remain secluded. Not tonight. A man approaches. He asks the time. As you reach for your phone to check, he goes to snatch it. You struggle for it for a second, then recall your martial arts training. You take him down apply a chokehold. A chokehold can cut blood to the brain, cut off the air, or break the neck depending on intent, technique and circumstance. As anticipated, he begins to lose consciousness. So far so good, right?

Not so fast. In all living things, there is a deep, biologically programmed urge to survive. You may be intending to render your attacker unconscious and then escape, leaving both parties unharmed. Killing him may not even be on your radar. However, all the target of your use of force knows is that they can’t breathe. The fear or expectation of serious injury or death triggers what we call a survival response. The survival response is ugly, brutal, incredibly dangerous… and effective.

So, what exactly happens? Essentially, the adrenaline spikes and the body begins to generate extreme strength as the person begins to look for an avenue escape. If the person applying force has not provided an escape route, the escape may be through that person. At this point, the one on the receiving end of the force may do literally anything in the world to escape. If the person applying the force is unprepared for this response, he or she could easily be killed or injured. Depending on the mental state of the recipient, and whether or not he or she has any training or experience, the one using force could even face a survival response in the form of a tactically skillful defense instinctively brutal survival actions.

These facts make avoiding your opponent’s survival response essential to your successful application of force. Understanding what sort of methods may trigger this response is critical. Many self-defense and martial arts systems teach methods that can escalate the conflict into the realm of deadly force, without actually creating immediate incapacitation or death.

What is deadly force? According the US Marine Corps, deadly force is “That force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm or which a reasonable and prudent person would consider likely to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.” This is where a cautious practitioner analyzes and categorizes his techniques. For example, should someone grab your wrist, a basic escape is not lethal force. Even a controlling wrist lock would not meet the definition. Poking them in the eye would. In fact, your arsenal of chokes, throws, tackles, punches and kicks, are likely all be considered the use of deadly force.

Let us look at a real world example, one of some infamy; the case of George Zimmerman vs Trayvon Martin. At the time Trayvon was shot, he was on top of Zimmerman, punching him in the head. Regardless of the cause of the conflict, this was an error. Why? Because Trayvon was using enough force to injure or kill Zimmerman (eventually) and also cutting off his escape route, but without using enough force to injure or kill him quickly. This triggered Zimmerman’s survival response and the rest is history.

Using deadly force without the ability to quickly and effectively incapacitate the target of your use of force is the equivalent of attempting to defend yourself from a gunman with a BB gun. Yes, you could hurt HIM with that. Yes, it is a weapon. Yes, it will also provoke a lethal force response, just as if you had a real gun. No, you will not win the ensuing gunfight.

What does this mean for self-defense? It means that force should be applied in extremes. You want to use either as little force as possible, so that the situation can be de-escalated OR DETERRED, or overwhelming force thereby incapacitating the attacker immediately. Escalating to lethal force levels without actually being immediately and effectively lethal or incapacitating is a grave tactical error.

How does this error of use of force happen? Why does this idea get perpetuated through the martial arts and through self-defense instruction? There are two common instructional mistakes. One is to not teach overwhelming force out of a sense of societal responsibility. Thus, students and clients are left without this ability, while still provided with deadly force techniques. This is dangerous and irresponsible. While teaching them the ability to overwhelm could indeed allow them to harm others, teaching them half-measures may lead to their harm. The use of force should either be gentle enough to de-escalate/deter or overwhelming enough to allow for no counter attack.

The second mistake is sanitizing the matter of violence, taking out the human element and looking at violence from a purely tactical perspective. In this case, martial artists tend to have acquired many techniques and multiple responses to both common and uncommon situations without considering the effects of actually using these methods on an actual human being. Even when sparring is used in training this does not capture the realities of doing real violence to a person, and it does not take into account his or her various responses. Dan

Ultimately, there is simply no such thing as the casual use of violence. There are real consequences, real pain and real fear. The responsible use of force takes into account both the initial act and its repercussions. Ignoring the effects of the survival response is both irresponsible and dangerous for teacher and student alike.

COMMENTARY BY ERIK KONDO

I think Jordan brings up an interest point about how the use of force is many times marketed, particularly to women, as relatively “gently” knocking someone out with either a choke or some type of a clean head shot. I think this type of marketing appeals to people who want to “teach the Bad Guy a lesson“. But they don’t really want to “hurt” him or experience the brutality of violence.

I call “using as little force as possible” a means of communication, which is an important aspect of boundary setting and conflict deterrence. And the use of overwhelming force to be the physical enforcement required after communication has or is likely to fail.

The use of half measures/ineffective deadly force Jordan discourages seems be predicated on the belief that the attacker is either lowly motivated and will flee at the first sign of resistance, or he will be easily subdued and his survival response will not be activated. While these situations may occur, it is a risky gamble to take.

TIPS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH BEING ARRESTED – Karen Moxon Smith

Editors note; Karen is Garry’s wife and an experienced criminal lawyer and senior partner at Norrie, Waite and Slater solicitors in Sheffield, UK. Whilst these tips are from her experience in the UK the advice is pretty good for most juridstictions.

This is intended to be a practical and realistic approach, it does not constitute legal advice. These tips are a guide for those unused to dealing with law enforcement but who, having defended themselves successfully, find themselves facing arrest by the police whilst they determine what actually happened.

If you are approached by the police, situations can quickly get out of hand which will rarely be to your advantage. For instance, if you start shouting others can get involved and then the police have to take action to take charge of the situation. The easiest option might be to remove you! Sometimes the police just want to move people along. Sometimes they genuinely want to ask what is happening.

Even if you believe you are in the right, listen and cooperate. Give your details, be aware of your demeanour. You can be arrested for not giving your details.  
The officer may have to quickly assess the situation. Don’t make yourself a nuisance. The loudest person always stands out. It is so easy to find yourself in the back of a van.   
This is not the time to tell the officer what your rights are and how s/he should do their job. Whatever your views about the police, they are under resourced and do a dangerous job. Nobody likes a smart Arse ! I have represented more than one law student who has tried to explain his or her rights. It’s not like the text books. I am afraid a later complaint for a minor breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) is unlikely to get off the ground.  
Be aware there might be CCTV. I have seen grown men cry when the CCTV shows them repeatedly kicking someone in the head when they honestly thought they had only acted lawfully. I have seen CCTV showing the accused cross the street and follow someone 100 yards when they truly believed the person approached them.  
The police also sometimes forget CCTV catches their actions. That might be useful for a later day but will not help you at the moment of arrest. Unsurprisingly CCTV sometimes either goes missing or wasn’t working when the accused needs it.  
If you are to be arrested then do not resist. The officer will not change his/her mind just because you protest. You will be cuffed and remember they will decide how tight the cuffs go on. The police have set phrases that turn up in statements explaining why they had to take you to the floor, put their knee in your back and use leg restraints. ‘Reccognised Home Office Approved Methods’ turns up a lot in statements. It’s when your face is in the grit and a Bobby is on your back that you might feel the need to kick out and then you end up with an assault PC charge.  
When you arrive at the police station you will be presented to the Custody Sergeant. The officers will tell him/her why they want you detained. It is the custody sergeants decision but s/he is more than likely to agree to the detention. The custody sergeant might listen to you at this point. You will be asked if you want a solicitor, say yes it is FREE AND INDEPENDENT. If you have medical problems make sure they are noted.  
Prepare yourself for a wait of some hours. You should receive a phone call from the solicitor who will also be present when you are interviewed.  
You are NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PHONE CALL . Don’t believe everything you see on TV. I have had many an accused greet me with this complaint. Most custody sergeants will let you make a call at their convenience, and at their discretion. Do NOT piss the custody sergeant off. Do Not piss the detention staff off. You have absolutely NOTHING to gain by doing so. You are going nowhere until the Custody Sergeant says so.  
You are entitled to have someone notified of your arrest  
Sleep! Delays occur, the police are under resourced. Your detention will be reviewed regularly. It can be quite a few hours before anyone is available to interview you. The solicitor will arrive when notified that the police are ready to interview. Solicitors are not paid enough to pop down and have a chat. You should not be kept waiting for a solicitor. Be suspicious if you are told that the solicitor will be hours or it is suggested that you will be quicker without a solicitor.  
When the police are ready to interview then the solicitor will attend. You will have a private conversation with the solicitor who will advise you about the evidence the police have and advise you of your options in interview. It is likely that the police officers interviewing have only a handover package from the arresting officers and are not over familiar with the case. The solicitor will stay with you for the interview.
Following the interview the officers report back to the Custody Sergeant. There might be obvious work that needs doing such as getting a statement, viewing CCTV or even searching your property. You are likely to be put back in your cell until this is done or you might be bailed to come back on a different date.  
There can be lots of different outcomes. Often you will be released but warned that you will be reported on summons. This means you might receive a Requisition to attend court. The Requisition will be sent to the address the police have. If you move and miss the letter of Requisition then the court will issue a warrant for your arrest if you fail to attend court. You might only know about this say at the airport when they scan your passport! I have had clients taken OFF the aircraft whilst sat with their families on the way to the Canaries. I have had a client met at East Midlands airport by armed police!  
If the police think their investigation is as complete as it can be the papers will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) They will decide if you are to be charged with an offence. They try and make that decision in 3 hours ( often whilst you are sat in the cell). If there is a charge you are formally charged and either given a court date or kept for the next available court. Don’t get charged mid Saturday morning otherwise you are there until Monday!  
Unless you are a flight risk, at risk of committing further offences or interfering with witnesses, you ought to be bailed to a court date. Sometimes with conditions. Breach the condition, or if an officer thinks you have breached it or even going to breach it then you are arrested and kept for the next available court. It is only then that there is an argument about whether or not you have breached. There is not an enquiry in the police station. So if you are given a condition to keep away from your girlfriend/boyfriend all s/he has to do is pick up the phone and say you called!   
There are other disposals, fixed penalty tickets, cautions a general ticking off and even No Further Action or Insufficient Evidence to Prosecute. All can have future consequences so make sure you have a solicitor from the start so you make informed decisions. Having a solicitor does not make you look guilty. The police have solicitors when they are in trouble. It doesn’t matter if you do not think you have done anything wrong, you might not have. If there is a chance you have, a solicitor will hopefully not let you make the situation worse than it is.

An Introduction To Child Safety – Kelee Arrowsmith

PERSONAL SAFETY TOOLS

Not sure how to start talking to your child about Safety? Here is a simple way to start. Let your child draw him/herself and then add their Personal Safety tools. Add as many as you can think of and discuss each one. Remember that YOU are your child’s best safety instructor.

5 SAFETY LESSONS FOR KIDS

Keeping secrets: No-one is allowed to tell your child to keep secrets. A paedophile will use secrets to try to drive a wedge between you and your child

Personal space: Teach them about personal space by talking about it in different ways. For example when they go to the bathroom, they close the door to create personal space. Mention it whenever they go into some kind of personal space.

Good touching / bad touching: Areas covered by swimming costume (bathing suit) – no one is allowed to touch them there and they should never touch anyone anywhere that is covered by their costume.

No-one has the right to make your child feel uncomfortable: Paedophiles often start with tickling or playing. Teach your child to walk away and say “don’t do that to me please”.

Safety Password: Next time you talk to your child about safety, come up with a safety password and you can use when someone goes to pick you child up from school, sport, etc.

REMEMBER that simply telling your child is not good enough – you need to tell them regularly and especially important, you need to roll play different scenarios with them

For more information on the services we provide, please visit us at:

http://www.personalsafety.co.za/

Street harassment; boredom, reputations and FOC it! – Wendy Dorrestinj

Over the years I have read and heard all sorts of advice about how to deal with street harassment. Mostly this advice was given by a wide variety of (self defense) instructors and sometimes by self-appointed experts. Sadly, only a minority of these tips were built on solid knowledge, let alone empiric evidence.

With this blog I would like to inform you about the most common form of street harassment, the dangers and the dynamics behind it and offer you some solutions. This blog is written from a Law Enforcement perspective and based on 20 years of law enforcement experience with an academic background in policing and behavioral sciences. Although the topic “street harassment” might suggest that the blog is written for women, it is actually not. Street harassment is something that both men and women are facing on a daily basis. (Loeber, 2001) Although a blog is too short to cover all the ins and outs of youth group dynamics and how to deal with it, my goal is to offer you some easy to remember, useful rules of thumb.

The estimations of how many women at one point in their life experiences any form of street harassment differ between 50% and 90%. The percentages of men experiencing street harassment are lower; the estimation is somewhere between 30-60%. Compared to men, women are more often confronted with street harassment within a sexual context, while men are relatively more often confronted with harassment based on crime and power struggles. The common denominator for both men and women is street harassment based on “street games”.

These percentages not only depend on where the question is asked; what is perceived as harassment in one culture may be seen as “normal street behavior” in another. It also depends on the definition of street harassment. For one person, cat calling won’t be a problem, for another, it can be very intimidating. Whatever your location, cultural background or definition of harassment is, please remember; this is your life and your body and no one else’s. Nobody has the right to touch you without your permission, nobody has the right to call you names or to judge your appearance, even when this “judging” is covered by so called compliments. You have the right to set your boundaries and the right to protect your body. How to set your boundaries is part of this blog.

The sole culpability for harassment lies with the perpetrator. It is his, and not his victim’s choice to play the game, commit the crime or to start the dynamic. However, you do have a responsibility for your own wellbeing and safety. To some extend your own behavior can influence the decision of the perpetrator to (not) attack or to harass you. (Becker, 1998) I realize that this might not be the most political correct or popular sentence in this blog, but it is, simply, the truth. At the other hand, it might feel encouraging to know that the key to your own safety is in your hands and not in someone else’s. (Beyond the Split Second; Reality Based Training in High Risk Law Enforcement Operations, 2015)

For this blog I will focus on the most common form of street harassment; “street games”, a game played by male youth groups on the streets of many western cities and villages. This form of street harassment is a calculated and instrumental form of aggression and intimidation, which means that the perpetrator starts the game with the idea that he (or they) will be the winner in this dynamic. And that is where you’re options are…

The first pillar of youth groups: Boredom/Entertainment
The first thing you have to realize when dealing with youth groups on the street is that they are bored as hell; the whole reason for hanging out on the street is to look for entertainment. Entertainment in the form of admiring each other’s new cellphones/sunglasses/shoes/latest moves/whatever. Once they’re done with the admiring part, they will be looking for some new entertainment. And that is where you come in. They will try to use you as their new form of entertainment. That is, unless you’re able to break or ignore the dynamic…

The second pillar of youth groups: Reputation
The second thing you have to realize is that credibility, reputation and hierarchy are strongly related and that reputation is one of the most important things for youth group members. There is something to win and something to lose for the group member in the process of intimidation. Although alcohol and/or drugs will influence ones perception of risk and weakens ones inhibition (self-control), the origin of the intimidation/cat calling/harassment is still an instrumental one: entertainment and fortifying the reputation within the group. (Bond, 1997)

Street credibility is based on the individual performance (perceived toughness by group members) and their contribution to the group. Actions like cat calling and intimidation can contribute to the perceived toughness ad therefor the status within the group. However, a failed attempt to intimidate a bystander can be disastrous for one’s status. This can lead to the need to retaliate and re-establish ones position. With a second (or third) attack as a result, often with an increased level of aggression. In other words: Think twice before you engage in the street game and “out smart” the perpetrator. And especially for the male readers of this blog: don’t let your ego stand in the way between you and your safety.
(For more information about youth groups see http://straatcontact.nl/ (Dutch))

So, by now I might have confused you. In the first half of this blog I told you that you have the right to defend yourself and the right to set boundaries. In the second half of the blog I warned you to be careful and think twice before you engage in the dynamic of street games. How do those two things add up?

The answer is: FOC it!

While walking on the street, you might encounter a youth group. By now you know they are probably bored and looking for some entertainment. You decide not to be part of that entertainment. If you have the possibility to avoid direct contact with the group without being noticed, use that possibility. You need to scan for options (basically lesson 1 in krav maga) Cross the road and walk at the other side and continue your journey. However, crucial in this case is “without being noticed”. As soon as the group has you in their sight, and they see you avoiding them, you will be perceived as an easy victim. If you can’t avoid them without being “detected”, pass them. Pass them in the same way you would pass a group of senior citizens; Friendly, Open and with Confidence.

Friendly and Open means: Engage in eye contact as you would do with any other group. If it is normal in your culture to greet people when you pass them, greet them now. If it is normal to greet people with a friendly smile, give them that smile now. No eye contact, not greeting and not smiling can be perceived as either an act of aggression or an act of fear. Both can start the entertainment/reputation dynamic you don’t want. Regarding the eye contact; make eye contact in a way that is perceived as normal within the culture you’re living in. In most cultures, avoiding eye contact is a way of submissive behavior. Engaging eye contact for too long, is a sign of dominance. Again, either positions can start the entertainment (submissive)/reputation (dominance) dynamic, which you want to avoid.

Crucial in dealing with youth groups is Confidence. The good news is that you don’t have to be confident to be perceived as confident. “Fake it until you make it”, can bring you home safely. So, while approaching the group and reminding yourself to appear “friendly and open”, walk straight up, make yourself tall, shoulders straight, breath a bit more slow and deep than usual (you’re probably a bit stressed by now and this is a good way to hide it) and walk with solid, firm steps like you’re walking straight to your destination. Maintain a healthy distance between you and the group at any time. Healthy meaning; healthy for you; don’t come so close that you’re easy to grab or to kick at. This will also help you to stay out of the group dynamic; if you come to close (or even in) the group, you’ll be a part of their territory and therefor interesting to play their games with.
(For more information about body language see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-_Mh1QhMc )

If anybody tries to engage with you or tries to pull you in their dynamic, you respond with a friendly but confident and clear response. Something in the line of “(Sorry) Am in a hurry, no time to talk”, and you continue your walk. Whether or not you start your sentence with “sorry” depends, again, on your culture. In some situations the “sorry” will be perceived as weak, in some situations the lack of the word “sorry” might be perceived as passive-aggressive.

If they approach you in a more intimidating way, you simply say “No” or “Stop … (behavior)” in a clear and confident way. Say it and mean it, and pretend that you firmly believe in it even if you don’t. You continue your route and leave the group behind. If you’re really afraid, wave at a (non-existing) friend in the crowd in the direction in which you’re going and say loud: “Hi! There you are” and walk firmly to your “friend” meanwhile scanning for possibilities and possible threats.

If the threat is getting more serious and you’re being attacked, fight like you trained in your krav maga classes; deal with the danger and run.

Sometimes a group is just looking for some serious trouble. In those cases, the rules of thumb from above don’t apply and the only safe way out is by not getting in. A clear example of a group actively looking for trouble is the group in this YouTube video. You’ll see active, wide body language, a lot of energy and the group is wide spread over the street. All signs that they’re not bored and clearly not looking for entertainment but looking for some serious trouble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIurRO0r4b4

To summarize: youth groups behavior is built on 2 pillars: Boredom/Entertainment and Reputation. By acting friendly, open and confident you decrease the chance that you’ll be part of their entertainment/reputation game because you’re simply not playing along in the dynamic.

Bio
CMDR D holds an MA in Policing, an MA in behavioral Sciences and an MSc in Public Management. Additionally, D is the only person in The Netherlands who is certified to lead (intervention) units as a bronze, silver and gold commander in both LE and firefighting operations. D is currently working on a PhD Research “Beyond the Split Second; Reality Based Training in High Risk Law Enforcement Operations”.

Stop Using Fear Based Marketing – Randy King and Erik Kondo

Erik: Randy, you wrote a great blog piece on why reality based martial arts instructors should stop using fear marketing to attract students. I think it makes great points and I have included it below:

Randy’s Post:

Reality-based martial artists, stop it. Stop using fear-based marketing, you’re a bunch of asses. I cannot stand people using fear as a motivator to make people buy things from them. Why – why do you feel the need to frighten people all the time about violence when, statistically speaking, they’re probably never gonna see it? Why are you putting up reports from your local newspapers all over your advertising listing all the bad things that have happened, out of context?

So many things in there happen to people whose jobs put them in the line of danger, or those who exist in a world where violence is very common. It’s not “local housewife walks down to store and gets attacked” – which happens rarely, stranger danger being the least common thing yet the most commonly marketed method to get people into self defense gyms. It’s always “man stabbed three times by girlfriend” – yeah, that happened, but what was the context of it? Taking something from one tiny little statistic and then using that to blitz a marketing campaign on social media, or on flyers, or in schools is low, and it makes all of us look bad.

If you’re not a good enough instructor to bring students in and retain them on your merits, if you have to scare the hell out of them to make them stay out of fear that when they leave your gym they will be attacked by random ninjas and vigilantes and rapists all the time … stop teaching! Just stop – you’re not doing anybody any favors. If you need to keep people in by making sure they leave terrified, or you bring them in by making them terrified – it’s ridiculous.

There’s a difference between fear-based marketing and awareness campaigns for what is happening. We, for example put up things that are happening in Edmonton, where we’re based, but we put up the context of it, we put up the whole news story – not a sound bite. Stop jumping into sound bite Fox news lifestyle where it’s all about propagating fear and making everybody suspicious of everybody else.

(Stop hitting the panic button! Students who you bring in with fear campaigns will not stay!)

Yes – violence does happen. Usually it happens from people that you know, usually with that violence – to quote Marc MacYoung – it has instructions on how to stop it. “Shut the fuck up and leave” – you shut the fuck up and leave, you’re good. Usually, bad things happen to people in bad situations – they go to places they shouldn’t go, they don’t know the rules, they’re in the wrong spot. Rory Miller has a whole bunch of things listed in his book, Facing violence about this. But to use bad things to profit your own business to me is probably one of the dirtiest, most shameful things you can possibly do.

Erik: Some Reality Based Martial Arts instructors are just one category of what I call the Merchants of Fear. The Merchants profit when people are afraid. Sometimes the Merchants are motivated only by profit. Other times, they may be promoting a worthwhile social cause (stopping violence against women for example). But the end result is still the creation of a culture of fear.

One primary audience for the Merchants of Fear are middle class women who are either in college or young working professionals. This audience typically has the disposable income to buy products. They are coveted by media advertisers. They have the time and passion to support their cause of choice.

The Merchants benefit when it’s audience:

Buys their personal safety products.
Attends their self-defense training programs.
Watch and read their crime centric sensational news stories.
Demand their greater police visibility and presence.
Support their Anti-Rape and Anti-Violence Organizations.

Some of the Merchants send out varying messages that evolve around the same general theme. All women are likely victims. All women are constantly being assaulted in one form or another. All women need this type of weapon, special training, or society to protect them. Scary statistics such as 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted are prominently quoted.

Suggestions that women have the natural resources/ability to defend themselves from assault in certain situations are sometimes denigrated as “victim blaming”. Some of the Merchants of Fear depend upon their target audience’s sense of victimization to further their respective businesses and causes.

The Merchants gain from its audience’s reduced Peace of Mind. Certain social causes pit the needs of the Individual against the needs of the Cause. The greater the victimization that appears to be occurring, the greater the support for the Cause. Society loses by increased feelings of helpless and fear, but the Cause wins more support.

Political candidates are increasing using the tactics of the Merchants of Fear to attract supporters.

Erik: Randy is there anything else you would like to add?

Randy: I have always found that there are two types of clients. Proactive and curative. The second group are training because something bad had happened to them. If you use fear based marketing, you not only rub their experience in their face for “not training sooner” (which is a giant pile of bullshit and you should know that!) you also run a huge risk of re-traumatizing them through your program.

The first group which thankfully is far larger, if you recruit them through fear, the only way to keep them is through the same method. You have to keep them scared, to pay your bills. If creating victims to scared to leave their home so that you get rich is how you roll…I hope that we never meet.

More on Risky Business – Maija Soderholm

They say you should imagine the scariest opponent you can think of, and that your training is valid if only if it works against them.

I get this – Certainly if your training only works against an inexperienced, clumsy, compliant, half-wit you are indeed doomed to failure. But is the opposite true for the other end of the scale?

Who would you most fear to cross swords with? Not in a sport context, but in an imaginary lethal encounter?

My personal nightmare is a bigger, faster, stronger, insane person. (Let’s not go into multiples/ambush/unarmed vs armed etc. Just keep it simple, to a one on one see ’em coming both equally armed context). And for me, the ‘insane’ part is the part that makes them the most scary. If someone is insane and does not care if they live, what options do you have? Not many. There is no potential harm you can threaten them with. They cannot be reasoned with, and the height/weight advantage means they outmatch you once contact is made.

When the odds get this bad, you have to risk everything to stand even a small chance of prevailing. Your options narrow down to the smallest of windows of opportunity, where the risk of injury or death is almost a certainty, and your only option is to ‘go’. Once. Win or Lose.

You could argue that this is the most important place to train because it matters the most. But it is also extremely rare. Many people might outweigh or outreach you, and there are certainly people out there who are more highly skilled, but insane? Not so much. For someone to care less if they ‘die’ just for the pleasure of taking you out? This takes a very particular type of individual with a very, very, personal grudge.

Why does any of this matter?

Because this is the opponent most people seem to fight, all the time.

Is this ‘wrong’?

There is a logic that says that if you have the answer to the most difficult problem, you also have the answer to all the easier problems, because the only thing that is changing in the equation is the threat level the opponent presents. As the threat level goes down, so the winning should become easier and easier. Right?

Well, kinda … yes, the technique might be very effective, but no, because the risk to self is left extremely high.

Remember, in training smart, we are looking for maximum gain for minimum risk. When you have no time or space, you have to judge everything, from range, to timing, to angle, perfectly. Even if there is only half an opening, you hope for some luck to add to your slight chance of surprise and you take it. Because you have to. And if nothing else, it never hurts to increase the chaos if you are losing.

But what of mere mortal opponents? I would argue that here, you actually do have the luxury of space, time, and especially rationality, to play with. You have choices, and those choices actually increase as the RELATIVE level of the threat decreases.

Rory once said something to the effect that time is a commodity, and one of the differences between a veteran and a rookie is knowing when you have it, and when you do not. If you do have it, it is far better to spend it gaining intel, rather than rushing straight into an unknown chaos without understanding what you might be facing.

Same can be said for sword play. If they are not insane, gain some intel first. Don’t risk yourself unnecessarily. You do have the time and the space. Use them. Make a smart decision.

I found the quote below on the internet. I have no idea if it is a real Native American saying, but I thought it was quite good. It speaks both to the difference in attitude whilst training versus in ‘reality’, but perhaps it also applies in a dueling situation, to the one who controls the game versus the one who does not?

“The huntsman can make many mistakes, the hunted, only one”.

Be the hunter.

Comment by Erik Kondo

Here is my interpretation of what you are saying. Please correct me as you see fit.

A person has both the ability and willingness to do you harm. If he is insane and determined to kill you at all costs. His will is not a point of weakness. It is fixed. Only your superior ability or your superior response will stop him. In this case, a category of response with a high degree of self-risk is acceptable under the circumstances.

But when a person has the free will to stop his attack at any time, then there usually exist multiple lower risk options available that target his Will-to-Continue. His Will-to-Continue could be his point of weakness. In this case, the previous category of response with the high degree of self-risk is now not the “best” option. You could first explore other categories of responses with lower self-risk.

Therefore, the responses do not exist only on a linear continuum. They also exist in different dimensions.

Response by Maija

I think your phrase ‘Will-To-Continue’ is great, because that gives us the only question that matters –

“What will make them stop”?

Realizing that this is a question that can be answered to alter the outcome in most cases (apart from with the rational or irrational crazies) now gives you time to find out what that answer might be.

Sometimes the answer IS me, physically forcing them to stop, at other times it could be them deciding not to continue due to external circumstances, or perhaps realizing that they have made a big mistake by miscalculating the threat posed to them.

I can influence their decision by how I act, what I say, how I move, what I do.

Everything I do has to swing the risk reward equation towards risk (for them). And it’s important to note that the equation needs to stay in risk/reward mode, and not win/lose mode. People emotionally hate to lose, and make very risky, and often irrational, decisions to avoid doing so.

If they are in survival mode, they need to feel like prey.

In social mode, they need to feel like they made the decision to not continue for themselves, to avoid feeling like they are ‘losing’.

In rational mode, you have to show them that the risk is not worth the reward, but have to worry less about it being a personal insight than just showing it as it is.

Finally, just a reminder that this is a piece about swordplay, so what I say comes from a limited view. It has ‘edges’. I do not speak from a self-defense perspective, but admittedly, the cross overs in tactics are obvious.

Natural vs. Traditional – Armin Hutter

After being unsatisfied with teaching some very traditional fighting technique again, I decided to make an experiment and dedicate part of the next three training sessions to the most ancient art of unarmed fighting: the traditional cavemen-style (for those, who don’t know it, it’s like crazy monkey kung fu, just without the kung fu). The results were quite interesting, but let’s start from the beginning.

I started the experiment with 5 participants of different stages of fitness and martial arts experience:

1 young woman with 2 month of martial arts training and very good fitness level
1 young woman with 5 month of martial arts training and mediocre fitness level
1 older woman with 6 years of martial arts training and very low fitness (and health) level
1 mediocre aged man with 6 years of martial arts training and good fitness level
1 mediocre aged woman with 30 years of martial arts training and mediocre fitness level

With Bruce Siddle’s (Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge) recommendations for teaching survival skills in Mind I tried to…

let Students learn basic components within three minutes
let Students see Technique work
let Students experience the technique personally in the first training session

The recommendation to let Students have a positive field experience would come in the last training session.

I introduced the flailing forearm strike in our first training session, which lasted about 15 minutes. During this time we handled the basic understanding and the power generation. Training the technique first in slow motion with a partner and after that with full power and speed on a kicking shield, I expected us to need at least 20 minutes to half an hour for the beginners to learn and understand. I also expected the more experienced participants to overcomplicate things. I underestimated both (the old stagers thought it through afterward, but it worked without thinking anyway). We even added some „extras“ like using the same motion for a hammerfist strike at slightly longer range and everybody was happy.

The results of the first training session:

the two young women at least tripled their power and speed
the older woman at least doubled her power
the man (who already did hit hard) doubled speed
the last woman (who already was fast) doubled speed and power

So far a impressing result for the first 15 minutes. Let’s see what comes next…

In the second training session we started with a brief revision of the basic technique, followed by some work at the dummy. We talked about targeting and then everybody got a chance to try his skills with full power and speed versus an human looking target.

The results of the second training session:

the two young women were surprised by the pain they experienced when hitting the dummy but got over it with the second round
two of the women had glitches when striking an human looking target. This mixed up their targeting: they didn’t dare to strike to the neck or head

So we have speed and power combined with some good targeting and found some glitches. For all of this we needed about 30 minutes.

In the third training session we started with a revision of the basics again and then introduced some dynamic stress test. Our “bad guy“ in heavy torso and head armor (with additional earplugs) would grab a participant from behind, trying a kidnapping or beatdown. Once the participant turned with a sweeping forearm strike the “bad guy“ kept this drill fast moving with a lot of forward pressure.

The results of the third training session:

every participant did hit even faster and more powerful, even when moving backward
only one of the women still showed the glitch not to hit the head or neck

So after 30 more minutes we erased one glitch, let students have a positive „field experience“ and enhanced power and speed even more.

To get these results in 75 minutes of training a traditional technique (by which method ever) seems hard. Since our short experiment, we included an additional drill to our regular training, combining progressive boundary setting with our “new technique“. I walk toward my students holding a big kicking shield. When I get too near, they raise their “visual fence“ with a verbal “no“. When I advance further I get a second “NO“, and when I touch the “visual fence“ with the kicking shield they explode and push me once through the room with their forearm strikes. And they still get faster…

Fighting Godzilla – Kevin O’Hagan

‘I am going to play devil’s advocate in this following article and hopefully give you some food for thought.’

I watch with mild amusement but also a fair amount of worry at many of the clips on social media of today’s so called ‘reality combat systems.’

When it comes to self defence techniques the majority of these systems have only one answer to an attack and that is to respond by totally annihilating their attacker and leaving them in a ‘gooey’ pile on the ground.

No matter what form of attack they face. Whether it is a wrist grab, shirt tug, headlock, punch or knife it will all end with the same response…beat the fucking living daylights out of the bastard. Gouge their eyes out, rupture their spleen, splatter their balls into mush and then collapse their windpipe and finish by battering their cerebellum until they drop to the floor a twitching, dribbling wreck!

Now many of these systems were developed as close quarter combat for the military to use in times of war. When they didn’t have a weapon available the last resort was to go hand to hand. It was literally kill or be killed! Extreme circumstances call of extreme responses.

The question is should these techniques be taught to the general public? Should they also be taught as self defence?

Every country has its laws and many vary but when it comes to self defence most are near enough the same.

Marc McYoung in his excellent book, In the name of self defence makes the important observation that self defence is a crime. Yes read that again. If you are pleading self defence you have got to justify your actions and prove it wasn’t a crime.

Everybody is answerable to the law of the land unless you are a criminal.

Military, Police, security and the general public are all answerable for their actions and the amount of force they use. There are no exceptions. Different circumstances certainly, but no exceptions.

Professionals that deal with violence understand about force continuum. This is a scale of force they work to depending on the threat level they are faced with.

Police for instant do not C.S gas and baton every person they encounter breaking a law. They will decide whether to use a verbal command or a physical action from control and restraint, cuffing, gassing or baton depending on the circumstances.

It has all go to be justified and answerable to a higher order.

But what about then the general public that might never have engaged in physical conflict?

Surely they would know nothing of force continuum?

They are not professionals?

True. But we are not just talking about an average member of the general public. We are talking about trained Martial artists in this instance.

These people are presumably trained to fight. If you spend a great deal of your time learning how to inflict pain and hurt on another human being then surely you should also know about the law and self defence and also the force continuum model? It is your duty as an Instructor or student alike.

If you don’t know then you will have plenty of time to practice your ‘killer techniques’ in the showers in D block in one of the many prisons around the world.

So should we be teaching these nefarious techniques to others?

Well let’s remember self defence is scenario based. No two situations are the same. Depending on what is actually unfolding around you will determine the level of your response. Remember the appropriate response may or may not be a physical one.

Maybe the situation requires you to disengage, run, hide, escape, de-escalate, and negotiate?

Physically you may have to, use a breakaway technique, control and restraint, immobilise, subdue, submit, and incapacitate, knockout or even kill?

Your job is to know which of these responses are appropriate at the time. Not easy. But this is what we should be training for. Not everything is code black and seek and destroy.

The law doesn’t expect you to get everything right down to the letter under the pressure of a real attack but if you are walking around boasting what a deadly fighter you are, black belt, cage fighter, Rambo or Ninja turtle, the law will presume that you have the necessary skills to make the right call more so than Joe Public would.

So can you take another’s live in the eyes of the law? Yes but you are going to have to prove it and justify it. If you can’t you are in big trouble. Remember it is a crime until proven otherwise. There is no free license to kill another even if you are being raped at gunpoint or some psychopath is trying to take your head off with a machete.

I n these extreme circumstances you may be prepared to do what is needed in that moment and answer to the law later.

There are no exceptions and you are accountable for your actions. Just as every man is. You will still have to prove you were justified in what you did.

The simplest way to view if you are justified is imagine you are sat on a jury and listening to yourself explain your actions. Would you agree with them or would you view it differently? Would all the jury members agree that yes it was justified?

You have always got to consider your actions and the consequences. Real life is not a film were people can go around breaking arms, necks and laws without being answerable.

When using physical technique for self defence you should ask yourself these questions.

Are my actions needed?

Are they necessary?

Did I have any other choice or option open to me?

Are my actions justified?

There are two sides to self defence training.

Learning how to defend yourself and with what and knowing when to defend yourself and with what.

In the dojo you can play out any technique without consequence but outside of the protected gym environment it is a different story.

You would do well to remember you will not always be fighting Godzilla.

De-escalation – Dillon Beyer

One of the core issues in conflict resolution and de-escalation is that you have to de-escalate yourself first. Unless you can bring your rational functions on line, any skill you have developed in de-escalating others will be useless. The skill of de-escalating yourself, like any skill, requires practice. The problem we encounter here is that this sort of practice is best done in the environment that requires the skill you are practicing; it’s akin to trying to learn the material during the test.

Given the potential consequences for failure, this can make finding places to develop skill at de-escalating yourself a dicey prospect at best. This is particularly problematic if you’re seeking out these opportunities intentionally; it turns out that employers, co-workers and employees, friends and family, aren’t always excited to be pulled into social and emotional conflict purely so that you could “get some reps in.” Unless, of course, you have a very particular group of friends, which is a different matter entirely.

Fortunately for us, we live in a world with a nearly perfect environment in which we can routinely practice, relatively free of consequence- the internet. Here is a game I like to play to practice personal de-escalation without much, if any, real risk. Feel free to play along.

————————————————————————————————
Next time you’re in an impassioned debate online, when there’s someone who’s COMPLETELY wrong on the other side of the debate, and you’ve got a good boil going, walk away.

It has to be a debate you’re invested in, on a topic that you really care about. If you don’t have any skin in the game, it’s easy to leave, and you won’t get anything out of it. Make sure it’s a discussion you *really* want to win. The reward will be directly proportional to the ante.

Don’t tell them you’re leaving. Don’t make any parting comment, or any attempt to save face or get in the last word. Just go radio dark.

Don’t go back and look at how the discussion is going without you. See if you can avoid “checking in” altogether. Make a clean break.

This is the fun part of the game: notice how it makes you feel. Notice your impulses, justifications, and how you rationalize them.

Is there a narrative you create to address any feelings about this you might have? What parts of your brain light up, and how do you deal with that? If you find yourself coming up with strategies to make it easier, can you play without them? Can you just watch the process happen internally without needing to address it?

If played honestly, I think this can help those of us who tell ourselves that we would never get caught up in this sort of nonsense, that we’re not subject to the same impulses as everyone else (those of us who are special snowflakes). If you play with a topic you actually care about, it’s a safe environment to watch your own processes run.

This seems particularly useful if you’re the sort of person who avoids escalation and monkey-dance games primarily by not caring about the people or topics involved. For those of us who are inclined in that direction, the monkey gets triggered infrequently, but that means we may actually have less practice addressing it when it does. If you’ve convinced yourself you’re not subject to a particular weakness, you’ll have a much harder time building the skillset necessary to navigate those waters if (or more likely, when) you find yourself in them.

Hide in Plain Site – Tammy Yard-McCracken, Psy.D.

Every predator hunts for specific prey. Humans are no different. We hunt for food and resources and occasionally, other humans. We like to think human predators are limited to violent sociopaths, serial rapists, and other overtly heinous people. We focus our research and training here because these predators are easier to identify than the low level predator subtly working his way into a victim’s life.

Low Level Predators, or “cockroaches” as Anna Valdiserri calls them (nicely done Anna), are invisible until they are crawling around inside multiple layers of their victim’s social contexts. Turn the lights on and they disappear –metaphorically speaking. If you shine light on their actions they will default back into slightly less intrusive scripts or blame their prey as the source of conflict. As Rory mentions in Self-Defense Failure Zone (April 2016, Conflict Manager), they use the same skills you do to navigate social terrain. Evidence of their predation is damned subtle. That little itch you get around the creeper gets ignored because the source of that itch is disguised as normal behavior.

Rory wrote that a participatory and active mindset has the best shot at shutting creepers down. I agree. And to take action early enough to avoid a cascade of defensive maneuvers (which don’t usually work very well), you have to see it coming. You have to be able to identify the threat, and Low Level Predators camouflage their predation. It’s easier to identify something if you already know a few of the markers, so let me introduce you to Julie, David and Jason*. They can help explain this.

We’ll start with Julie. She is starting over. Living with friends, she needs to make connections through their community while she gets herself settled. Her housemates introduce her to the neighbors, Paul and Danielle. Julie and Danielle form a tight bond. It takes time, but they become best-friend close. Julie listens and encourages Danielle’s misgivings about her marriage and simultaneously deepens her own friendship with Paul (the husband).

Julie babysits so Paul and Danielle can have alone time. She meets with Paul when he needs advice on how to reconnect with Danielle. Julie suggests he let Danielle explore her bisexual interests to spice up their marriage. Instead, the marriage craters. Danielle moves out of town and Julie goes to visit. Paul pays for Julie’s airfare because she is both broke and the only one who might be able to bring Danielle back to him. Julie visits Danielle and completes the yearlong seduction. Paul and Danielle’s marriage is Julie’s third coup – she has used this hunting pattern before.

Now David:

Katelin is David’s protégé in a finance company. He is a control freak but helps catapult her into a high profile position. We make a good team. You’re patient with my micromanaging and you know how take the initiative. Because of her patience, he was learning how to dial down the controlling behavior. You’re the first person I have trusted to manage big accounts with little oversight. Katelin knows she has to pay her dues and bites her tongue when David’s praise is only used to soothe the sting of his sharp criticisms. Long days turn into late nights. David jokes with Katelin, you must be magical- my wife trusts me to work late with you.

As mentor and supervisor David occasionally enlists Katelin’s feminine intelligence to help him choose a gift for his wife, the one who trusts her to work late with him. Then he discloses he has a woman in his life other than his wife. It’s long term and he loves them both…and then a second mistress emerges and Katelin is buying gifts, sending flowers, for all three. It looks like she has something “on him” now, doesn’t it? But it is the other way around. The way she describes it, David has her hostage. Katelin is pretty sure he will sabotage a job change with a scathing reference if she tries to leave – she is “too valuable” to him.

When Katelin shrugs his hand off her shoulder he belittles the boundary. No offense girl, but you’re just one of the guys. He commandeers a presentation and later explains he was protecting her from a misogynist colleague. He is concerned that her boyfriend is too controlling and tantrums when she refuses his advise to ditch the bastard. When he bullies her for making a mistake, she writes it off as just trying to help her climb the ladder and the tantrums are just his way of showing that he cares. Finally, David gives Katelin an ultimatum: Lose the boyfriend or the job. He thinks the boyfriend is abusive and it is interfering with her focus at work.

Low level Predators come in as many flavors as we have social scripts. I knew David and Julie. I also knew Ellie and Katelin. I’m sure there is more to both stories but these are the details I have to share. Their stories also read like case studies and it’s easy to go academic. The problem with taking an academic attitude? We get to distance it. It happens to other people. So let’s get to know Jason. I can introduce him better because this campfire story is mine.

My first year out of college I moved into an old upstairs flat a few hours from home for my first big-girl job. On moving day, my downstairs’ neighbor stopped by to introduce himself. He helped my father haul in the heavy stuff and promised to look out for me. Jason shook my dad’s hand and looking at me added – I’m here if you need anything, don’t hesitate to ask.

In the beginning, we did the neighbor wave when we passed. He checked in to make sure I was finding everything around town. A few weeks later he brought me ‘left overs’ –made dinner for a friend and had extra. When I missed work with the flu, he dropped off some chicken soup. Driving back and forth to visit my fiancé, Jason remarked that he thought my brakes were getting bad- I should have them looked at. He looked in on my cat when I was gone and with each trip pressed the brake issue – I can take a look at them for you. I came home from work one night to find my thermostat stuck in the on position heading for 100 degrees in the dead of winter. He heard me throwing windows open and came to help. None of this flagged, just seemed like a nice guy (maybe a little pushy)– good neighbor behavior.

Passing hellos turned into dialogue. I didn’t really want to chat but he was obviously lonely, never saw him with friends. I felt sorry for him. It won’t kill me to be nice to the guy…

My mail carrier was a friend. He was the first one to say something. He noticed Jason going through my mail. I blew it off. Next, Jason showed up on my doorstep with a vase of flowers, saying they were left over from something at his mother’s house.

He knew things about my friends, my job, and my routines that struck me as a little over-informed but we lived in a small town. In a small town if you forget what you’re doing just ask a neighbor…

Then one morning my phone rang. It was Jason. Hey, you okay? You’re usually in the shower by now, didn’t want you to be late for work. Thought maybe you’d overslept.

Now I was paying attention and it was too late to be anything but reactive. More flowers. I refused. He left them anyway. Sent them to my work. Shamed me for not accepting them. He would coincidentally be at the grocery store when I was. When I changed my routines he found reasons to be out in the alley behind our flat when I was coming home. Grabbed my groceries from my car and insisted on carrying them up.

When I set hard boundaries he cowed. Asked to talk, wanted to make amends, apologize. Nice people forgive. I granted the audience. He leaned against the inside of my door blocking the exit. We’re going to get married, you and I. He explained I would eventually see that we were destined for each other–I would come to my senses. The wedding I was planning was for him, not my fiancé, I just hadn’t figured it out yet, but he had detailed plan of how it was going to go down.

Jason played on all the social scripts that worked to get close to me. He waited until we had a solid neighborly relationship and set the stage by putting my dad’s paternal fears at ease as ad hoc oversight. When I set boundaries he complied, sulked and then escalated from a different angle. It ended because I married my fiancé after all and left the state. Stalking was not a crime until it went physical in the 80’s – and by textbook analysis, it was headed there.

Low Level Predators use a broad range of social tactics to hunt. Julie played on the intimacy of female friendship. David used position and status. Jason played out a toxic version of the boy-meets-girl romance script. David and Julie both blamed their prey for the ensuing chaos. What Jason’s story was – I can only guess. I never went back to ask. What’s important is this: they all felt unjustly accused. It’s possible they were authentically unconscious. Even so, allowing creeping victimization** to pass without impunity is not a social script anyone should follow.

Welcome to the problem. Low level predatory behavior is insidious. The scripts are being followed and creeping victimization gets a pass. For everything being written on violence, on this subject our depth of game is, what? Thin? That’s an understatement. We talk about the “cockroaches” when we see them, but we don’t ask the hard questions and we don’t get deep enough to look for their patterns. We don’t ask and we don’t look because doing so requires getting our hands dirty.

I want to ask questions like; when the victim gains from the relationship (Katelin’s career did advance substantially), is there a point when it ceases to be victimization? With Julie and Ellie, is there a point where Ellie becomes a collaborator instead of Julie’s target? And when I ask these questions, am I victim blaming?

How about this, if talking about Low Level Predators doesn’t actually benefit anyone then isn’t it just mental masturbation? If people are going to benefit, we need to start looking at the Low Level Predator patterns and see if there are reliable tells. Then if the tells are reliable, we need to ask if those tells are consistent enough to be useful. I agree Rory’s active mindset has the best shot at shutting creepers down and if that’s going to be a coachable skill we need to get our hands dirty.
*For obvious reasons the names are fictitious but the people are real.

**Creeping Victimization is a phrase Rory used in the previous referenced article.