Jason H. writes:

“Do you really live in the Cause State every day? Do you find that it affects you negatively in any way (socially) and if so, how do you deal with that?”

——————–
Jason,

The Cause/Effect State is really just a paradigm to illustrate the roles of winners and losers in violence — the winners do the hurting while the losers get hurt.

It’s about making the decision, ahead of time, to be the one doing the hurting.  It’s understanding that defense, blocking, countering, and backing up are what victims do, and leaving that for the victims.  If it’s act or react, you want to be the one doing the acting. read this entry »

Note: while Greg M. is a police officer, as always, there is much to be learned from these comments to him.

————————————

Greg M. writes:

“I recently started receiving your training e-mails and they are full of great information. I am going to pass them on to my training staff for their input.

Now the question.

I clearly see the use for your methods when that ‘oh shit’ moment comes.  Most regular citizens can come to that point very fast if confronted on the street.  However,  I am a Police Officer in Georgia.  Like cops everywhere, I know that critical moment can come at almost any time I am in uniform (or at work at all).

I am trained to use ‘only that force necessary to stop the assault/control the suspect.’  It seems there is a SEVERELY thin line between TFT and necessary force.  If you make the wrong decision, you could be in prison or in a box. The fact is that lots of people that may attack cops are not trying to kill them.

Perhaps I am over thinking things, but reacting with the mindset of striking with the intent of doing maximum harm could be devastating to my life.  Also understand that making the choice not to do so may end up with a call to my wife from the Chief.

I know that I am not the only one that has these thoughts.  I have seen videos of cops getting executed because they were afraid of excessive force complaints.

Your comments would be appreciated.”

————————————

Greg,

The issue here is understanding where TFT slots as another tool at your disposal as a law enforcement professional working within your force continuum (note: the force continuum is a precise definition of how police officers and other agents must deal with the subject of escalating violence). read this entry »

Ben F. writes:

“In your ‘Surviving the Most Critical 5 Seconds of Your Life’ 17 disk DVD series, all the ‘attackers’ have their hands down and really aren’t portraying realistic attackers.  This is discouraging because it does not translate to a real attack where the aggressor is in a fighting stance and coming towards you with arms up at chest or head height.  I will not be totally confident in this DVD series or material until I see how to defend myself in a REALISTIC violent scenario.  I recently bought your ‘Human Weapon’ package, and am not discrediting you just yet but am wondering if the scenarios become realistic in further DVDs in this series.”

———-

Ben,

Your concern is not uncommon — I’ll do what I can to explain what we’re training for.

And it all revolves around the fact… we’re not learning how to fight but how to hurt people. read this entry »

The essential problem in personal violent conflict is the belief that the social contract is bulletproof.  Or, at the very least, that it still applies to you even if the other guy has chosen to completely ignore it.

The initial assumption is that everyone holds to it in a similar fashion.

A little life experience, a little paying attention, and you come to realize that it just ain’t so.

This is a hard first step towards figuring violence out, one that is a shock even if you don’t have to learn it the hard way.  (Anyone reading this has already figured this out.)  But this potentially life-altering shift in perspective is useless if you continue to use the social contract as the lens through which you view violence.

This is how we all arrive at the “bad guy/good guy” and “attacker/defender” dichotomies.

We use our social perspective to make a judgment about who’s right and who’s wrong, define those roles and then pick the one we aspire to.  We all want to be the good guy, and since bad guys attack that makes us the defender.

Now that we’re stuck with it — it can be even harder to shift that perspective than learning that not everyone holds to the social contract as closely as we would like.

Let’s look at two scenarios: read this entry »

If you missed Part 1 or Part 2 of this series, be sure to check these out before continuing below…

—————

When the five guys pulled up to go after Will, they tried to limit his options by coming up onto the sidewalk and hemming him in between the car and the building behind him.  Will failed to see that as a problem.

As the car door snapped open, Will was already in charge of the situation.  He knew it was impossible to fight off five men at once — and since it was a two-door, there’d be a natural bottleneck he could take advantage of…

—————

We’ve seen how “going on the hunt” dramatically shifts the tempo of the engagement in your favor.

Becoming the attacker, the assailant in a target-rich environment, is vastly superior to trying to defend yourself from multiple attackers at the same time.

It’s one thing to go on the hunt and know how to hurt people; what about the issues of being vulnerable and surrounded? read this entry »

If you missed Part 1 of this series, be sure to check these out before continuing below…

———-

The three problems inherent in all multiple attacker self-defense situations are seemingly insurmountable.

There’s only one of you, and a bunch of them. If you go after one guy the rest just dog-pile you; and you’re stuck in the middle having to pay attention to the 360 degrees around you while they only have to look — and go — in a single direction… in a beeline after you.

These three problems — 1) outnumbered, 2) vulnerable, and 3) surrounded… can all be solved with the proper attitude, injury, and, most importantly, movement.

Just like the motivational workplace poster-kitten says, “Attitude is everything.”

Though it’s cliche, it holds true for self-defense against multiple attackers, too.

If you think in terms of being the one with the problem, then that’s you, stuck with solving multiple problems.

If, instead, you think in terms of BEING the problem and revel in making it as bad as possible for them, you’ll be giving the still-conscious ones second thoughts. read this entry »

I received hundreds of emails about the teleseminar we offered with Jeff Anderson on Home Invasion.

One in particular, from Veronica in Latin America, really got me thinking and I wanted to share it with you…

###

Hello,

I enjoyed your teleseminar, but as someone who lives in Latin America, I was a bit astonished by a lot of it. read this entry »