Tim Larkin - Target Focus Training

It's a great question, and one that I get asked frequently. We spend a good chunk of our non-mat time trying to educate people in how to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate uses of the tool of violence. After more than 20 years of doing this work I figured it was as obvious to everyone else as it was to me -- but we all know what happens when you make assumptions.

Instead, I found an interesting dichotomy -- everyone walked in the door ready to 'kick ass' but then suddenly balked when I showed them how to crush a throat or kick a downed man in the head as hard as humanly possible. Suddenly, there was a disconnect between the tool they wanted and the tool I was teaching. And that difference is the (anti)social - asocial divide. Everyone wants to kick ass and essentially get their 'man card' punched, but they realize that maiming, crippling and killing are hideously inappropriate to the bar fight or dust-up between inebriated compatriots. And it is.

I would rather not have to explain the difference. It takes away from time we could be working on the mechanics of injury -- jaw flapping is near useless when compared to mat time. In the end it's an important take-away for our clients; it simultaneously focuses them on the reality and seriousness of the situations we're training for -- life-or-death -- and hopefully saves them the wear and tear, emotional trauma, and life-changing legal troubles surrounding violence used stupidly and inappropriately.

I would love for such problems to be abstract, but they aren't. They turn up all too frequently in the media, and if you're paying attention, you can connect the dots every couple of months or so. Like this case here in my hometown, the third such one this year:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081119-9999-1n19cravens.html

Why bother, indeed? You be the judge.

Labels: fighting, Intimidation, lethal

My wife came back from grocery shopping this weekend with a chilling story: a man stalked her in the remote parking lot behind the store. Now, the story obviously had a good outcome -- nothing happened -- but it was the way she talked about it, what was important to her and how she processed the event, that stuck with me enough to write about it here.

(Some facts about my wife: she's 5'2", had a couple months of training more than 16 years ago (and hasn't been on the mats since). She also took out a guy who came after her in a parking garage around that same time.)

Her story:

"There was a guy across the street who was obviously unbalanced, homeless or nearly so. As soon as he saw me, he looked around, saw that we were pretty much alone behind the store, and then began to cross the street toward me.

"It was clear that I had triggered something in him, maybe I reminded him of a girlfriend, ex-wife, or his mother, I don't know. But it was obvious to me that he was agitated by my presence.

"My first thought was what I would do to him if he came near me. I figured I'd smash him in the neck and sit on his hip to drop him, and then kick him in the head when he was down on the ground. It's worked for me every time I've done it in training."

(When I asked her to clarify, she said that she found she could dump larger, heavier men reliably into the ground this way.)

"Then I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt -- up to a certain point -- and loudly warn him off if he actually stepped into the parking lot, about 50 feet away. If he didn't stop then I'd take him out.

"As he got to my side of the street he seemed to reconsider and paused at the sidewalk. I continued calmly putting groceries in the car, and making sure he could see I was keeping an eye on him. He seemed to come to a decision and slinked off down the street. So I got in the car and came home."

Several things struck me about her narrative. The first one was a total lack of fear-language or a sense of victimhood. I even asked her, "Were you worried about what he might do to you?" She shook her head. "It didn't even occur to me. I was preoccupied with what I was going to do to him."

Note that is not bravado or empty posturing. She was resolved to hurt him, put him down and make sure he couldn't get back up. Her body language transmitted that grim determination and probably played a role in getting him to wave off. His prey was suddenly giving off predator signals, and he had to make the choice between a hard fight or easy pickings elsewhere.

Of course, it might all have been a terrible mistake; maybe he just wanted some change or a bag of chips. But that wasn't her read on the situation, and I trust her judgment.

The second thing that struck me was her confidence in her ability to get it done -- even without having trained in a very long time -- because she took ownership of the tool of violence way back then, and, unlike a specific technique or a spinning back-kick, you never forget how to hurt people.

It's been a long, long time since she had to think about it... but when she realized it was a potentially bad situation, it was there for her. She knew what to do and she was resolved to do it.

She was, regardless of what most people might be led to believe, in her element. That kept her from behaving like a victim. It probably helped to change a would-be predator's mind.

As much as this is a real-world, close-to-home reminder of why I do this work...

I'm just glad she's back home safe.

Labels: criminal violence, intent, mind-set, self defense for women, stalking