Labels: fighting, Intimidation, lethal

Slap a clown... everyone has a good laugh. But slap a killer... and you're likely dead. Let me explain.



The grainy black and white security cam footage is stark to the point of nausea. Like all murder, it's a kick in the guts how awfully stupid-simple killing really is. And, like the worst ones, it comes out of nowhere, sudden, final, and totally unexpected.

They don't even bump shoulders in front of the convenience store, just a casual brush of forearms, but enough to piss somebody off. The guy in the black sleeveless t-shirt turns and says something to the guy in the football jersey as he walks away. It probably wasn't nice. Football Jersey turns, probably answering the invective with a challenge. Black T saunters up, almost casual, and punches Football Jersey in the face. The blow does nothing more than rock his head back. Jersey takes a couple of steps away, though not from the punch. Because he wants to. There's an eerie calm about him. Black T swaggers toward him, slow, arms akimbo, body language questioning, "what now, coward?" In no particular hurry, Jersey pulls a nine-mil auto and empties it into Black T's head and chest.

The crowd breaks and runs, their backs strobe-lit by muzzle flashes.

What started as a usual Saturday night ends in death for the guy who, by all accounts, was on top of it. He was badass enough to insult people in public. He was confident enough in his fighting skills to throw the first punch. He was brave enough to push it and close distance to finish the job.

In the end, he lost his life not because the other guy had a gun, but because he slapped a killer. A mistake you usually only ever get to make once. He waded in, confident and in charge because every other time he did it he was slapping clowns. Every other time it ended in amusement for his friends as the clown laid down or ran away. This was obviously the first time he’d ever slapped a killer. And as it usually works out, the last.

This video is an ugly, awful reminder of how screwing around in violence can be lethal. Lethal for the confident, the skilled, the scrapper who's come out on top of dozens of altercations. Lethal for the competitor, the martial artist, the trained black belt. Lethal just that one, last time, the time you slap a killer.

Labels: criminal violence, gun, Intimidation

If a killer kills someone... no one is much surprised. Likewise, if the killer is killed by his intended victim, that's understandable irony.

But if no one meant to kill anyone, and someone ends up dead, well, then it's cartoon exclamation points all around. Everyone, including the newly-minted killer, is surprised. Cries of "How could this happen?" and "But I didn't want to kill him!" ring out. In the end it gets labeled as an unfortunate accident.

But these 'accidents' happen often enough that when a new one pops up I can still recall the last one I read about. Primates have a territorial dispute, and begin vocalizing at each other to communicate their displeasure, then aggression in a sideways request that the other capitulate. When neither one backs down, it goes to blows, again to run the interloper off. Usually, this works out fine, as nature intended. But when it's bodyweight + brain + concrete, one can end up running their rival not just off their territory, but off this mortal coil entire.

These things happen often enough that I would suspect you're more likely, on balance, to be involved in this sort of situation than purely asocial violence. In other words, you're much more likely to get slapped at than outright murdered. Misery comes from confusing the two.

If you train to kill and think that means you're physically trained to handle the antisocial, it's the same as carrying a gun in case you get into an argument.

If you train to kill and think that means you get to ignore the antisocial, you're setting yourself up to be ready for the most unlikely event while ignoring the most likely. Chances are, you're going to get caught wanting.

Because we train to use our bodies to cause injury, it's easy for people to get the wrong idea -- on the surface, martial arts and combat sports look similar to what we do. And since martial arts and combat sports do a great job of preparing folks to navigate that antisocial fog-zone, then they tend to think we're training for the same thing, only in a 'super effective' way. That's like pulling a gun in a bar fight and 'shooting to subdue.' There's no such thing.

Still, people get all eager to lock horns. It's funny to me (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) seeing as how we can still end up with unintended fatalities. If you ask a gun owner, "How many gunfights do you want to be in?" the sane ones will all tell you, "None." The sane ones understand what goes on in a gunfight, and would never choose to be there if they didn't have to. If they should find themselves there, they will shoot to kill. But they don't walk around looking for gunfights.

This is painfully obvious when we talk about guns. But for some reason it's less obvious with the empty hands. Why? It comes down to expectations. We expect someone to die if a gun is involved -- that's what the modern handgun is for, killing people at close range. We don't expect someone to die from a standard, everyday session of monkey politics. And yet death is one of the possible outcomes.

Me, I expect someone to die every time violence is used, and then breathe a sigh of relief when everyone survives. I have absolutely no interest in going physical with monkey politics. I don't leave the house looking for opportunities to use my skills.

My aversion to violence runs so strong that it makes me something of a walking contradiction to my friends -- I will do whatever I can to avoid physical, antisocial confrontation and yet won't hesitate to stomp someone into the morgue in the asocial realm. I'm like Gandhi with a nuclear weapon.

For those of you feeling eager, or emboldened by your training, some advice:

You're all set for the asocial. If someone wants to murder you, you're well prepared -- knowledgeable, practiced, resolute. But don't forget to make sure you're prepared for the antisocial -- sharpen those social skills, actively think about how you want to be in those situations. Will you join in and play along? Throw fuel on the fire? Push until he either backs down or goes for you? Or will you go completely sideways on him, defusing the situation, seeking to reduce his fear and channel his anger elsewhere?

Know where your triggers are and puts lots of padding between them and the outside world. Work to recognize when you're being pushed into a corner. And remember that simply walking away could save your life -- or keep you out of prison.

As with the asocial, so with the antisocial: be prepared.

Chances are you'll go your entire life without anyone trying to kill you. I wouldn't make the same bet about some jerk calling you out.

Labels: intent, Intimidation, lethal force self defense

I was recently reading an article on self-defense in which the author was speaking of violence as if you could pick and choose the level of seriousness of the interaction, i.e., if he just wants to 'kick your ass' you kick his ass back, not *really* hurting him, but teaching him a lesson.

If he's a little more serious, then so are you -- and if he wants to kill you, well, that's the only time you're going to use certain techniques and targets like eyes, throat and so on.

"It's the idea that you can choose to hit someone with, say, 60% of what you've got -- and that you'll only ever hit someone with 100% when your life depends on it."

This idea illustrates a fantasy disconnect between 'fighting' and violence, one that deserves a fantasy name: I often refer to this idea as 'dialing in your Spidey-power.' (With many apologies to Stan Lee.)

It's the idea that you can choose to hit someone with, say, 60% of what you've got -- and that you'll only ever hit someone with 100% when your life depends on it. It's being able to look at an impending 'fight' and say 'well, he's not really serious, so I'll dial my Spidey-power down to 50%' and then sock him hard, but not TOO hard, because, after all, you don't want to kill him, right?

Here's the problem: holding back can get YOU killed. There are many ways to hold back:

1. You can wait and see to try and suss out what his intentions are,
   
   
2. You can make certain targets 'off limits' because wrecking them is awful (you'll never hear me say otherwise) -- like the eyes or breaking a knee, both permanent, crippling disabilities, and/or
   
   
3. You can 'go easy' on him by not striking as hard as you can.

Any one of these leads directly to reduced effectiveness, poor results, and in the worst case, can get you killed.

The idea that you can suss out his intentions is a fantastical delusion. If you don't have psychic powers (and my guess is... wait for it... you don't) or can know the evil that lurks in the hearts of men like the Shadow does, then you're screwed. You'll know he wants to kill you because, well, he's doing it. That is not the time to find out. In fact, it's never a good time to find out, right?

Making targets off limits ahead of time ("I'll never take the eyes") will give you a hesitating hiccup if your next -- and only -- opportunity is that target. You will stop. And try to get restarted. If you're lucky, it means nothing. If you're unlucky, the opportunity is gone and you just got shot/stabbed/whatever (perhaps again) and you just better hope he got it wrong.

You always want to strike the man as hard as you can.

Always -- as hard as you can. 'Holding back' reduces the chance of injury. Now we're into the realm of slapping each other around, pissing people off, and delivering non-specific 'light' trauma that is neither a persistent injury nor spinal reflex inducing. It's wasted motion that let's him know it's on.

The author did believe, however, that in a real worst-case scenario a magical transformation would occur -- that even though you'd been neutering and watering-down your training by waiting, making targets off-limits and slapping at them you could suddenly rise to the occasion of your impending murder by crushing the throat or tearing out an eye with full force and effort.

That's a neat idea, but it flies in the face of 'you do what you train.'

So, to that point, how does the way we train serve you? It would seem, on the surface, that we ONLY train for the worst-case scenario, that to use what you know in any other situation would be like using dynamite as a can opener.

Let's put it this way: the 'worst-case scenario' encompasses and includes all other possible scenarios; going in purely to cause serious injury, put the man down and then pile it on (i.e., start kicking a 'helpless' man on the ground) covers, handles and takes care of anything and everything he may have or have wanted to do to you.

But the real beauty is that you can stop at any time.

You'll typically do this the moment you recognize that he's non-functional.

Let's say you start out by breaking his jaw at the TMJ. You get the minimum expected reaction -- he turns slightly, somehow keeps his feet. You come back with a shot to the groin and get a HUGE reaction, he goes down face-first and tries to curl up in a fetal position. You break his ribs and then strike to the side of his neck, knocking him unconscious. At this point you recognize that he is non-functional (to your satisfaction) and stop.

(Notice that I didn't mention any techniques or tools -- that's because they don't matter. Injuries matter.)

This sequence could have been different at each node of injury -- you break his jaw and he spins around three times and lays down, out cold; you stop when he goes fetal after the groin strike; you stop after breaking the ribs because as far as you're concerned, your read on him is 'done.'

You also know how to carry it to a more final conclusion with a stomp to the neck, a neck break, a stomp to the throat, etc. But always as an informed choice -- not out of desperation, and not after having been trained that it is 'wrong' or morally less-than.

You also know how to start right off with throat-eyes-neck break, but again, as a conscious choice. If killing is what will see you through, you will kill him. If killing is not appropriate, you can still operate because you know where the line is.

All violence is the same

This is because you are trained in the totality of violence, understanding it for what it is -- a single-use tool that does not have an intensity dial on it. You can't make guns shoot 'nice.' And what a bullet does is the purest expression of everything we're ever talking about. All violence is the same.

So what does this mean for you?

First and foremost it means you understand that violence is not a plaything -- you won't goof off with it any more than you would with a loaded firearm. This is healthy. It means you won't get sucked into stupid shenanigans (antisocial) thinking you can use what you know without any negative repercussions. It means you're going to be smarter about when to pull it out and use it. This is going to save you tons of wear and tear, not to mention legal troubles.

It means that when you do use it, you're going to use it the only way you can be sure it works -- with no artificial social governors restricting what you can and can't do. You'll strike him as hard as you can to cause injury. And you'll take full advantage of that injury, replicating it into non-functionality.

If we view this through a social lens it is savage, brutal, dirty, unfair and very probably illegal somewhere. This was the essential thesis of the self-defense author.

But the question you have to ask yourself is are you going to bet your life the other guy is playing by the rules?

If he is, well, then you're a jerk, aren't you?

If he isn't, you're dead.

The moral of the story is: screw around with violence the same way you'd screw around with a firearm -- don't.

Labels: fighting, intent, Intimidation, lethal force self defense, self defense

Labels: competition, intent, Intimidation, San Diego Training

Human societies are fascinated with strength and power.

Obvious personal power especially--height, musculature, and a hair-trigger willingness to do violence are eternally impressive to us. We all desire what those attributes grant the possessor, to be respected, to inspire awe, and, perhaps, fear.

When we are intimidated, we feel all those things acutely. Most of all the gut-snarling fear. We feel it, and we want to make others feel those things, too. We feel it and realize we don't want to confront the intimidating person... and wouldn't that feeling be a very useful thing to project?

Only if you want to take it to the physical, to have to use violence to back up your newfound badass attitude more often than you'd like.

Intimidation is like juggling 13 double-edged swords and playing with fire simultaneously.

For our purposes we're going to define 'intimidation' as the antisocial process of going out of your way to make someone afraid of you. Most people take this a step farther, not stopping at mere fear but going headlong into humiliation. Once they realize they've made someone afraid, they will typically push it and rub it in to humiliate the affected person.

As an interesting aside, it's a common truth that people who use intimidation as a social tool will do the things that would intimidate them--they will project the behaviors that they, themselves, fear most.

Why is intimidation so dangerous?

Because it can get you killed, whether you fail or succeed to intimidate.

If you fail to intimidate the man, you have just escalated the situation--by saying, in effect, "Do you want me to hurt you?"--and now, unimpressed, he's calling your bluff. If he's the kind of guy who responds to threats with physical action, then it's on. You just called it down upon yourself because you wanted to be a badass.

Most of the time it's not going to be a problem--if it went physical all the time very few people would do it, right? The problem is, the people who get set off by this are the worst kind... and I hope I don't have to tell you that choosing to escalate a screaming match into a life-or-death situation is asinine.

Let's say you succeed in intimidating him. Mission accomplished, right? You put him in his place, you showed him (and everyone in earshot) who's boss, you made him feel afraid. How could that possibly go wrong?

Yeah, I know--it's a rhetorical question.

Let's flip it around: he succeeded in intimidating you, he made you feel afraid. Maybe even made you feel afraid for your life. How do you respond? If you know how to handle the physical side, you can take it there in a blink of an eye and shut him off. Maybe you just feel socially embarrassed and walk away. Or maybe you knock him down, knee him in the face and stomp on his head until he's non-functional. Maybe you pull your gun and shoot him dead. Who can say? It's going to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

So you make him feel afraid. Most people will back down and disengage, usually while making even more noise than before. But there are some, the worst out there, who will take it as a threat and work to destroy that threat. They may go off instantaneously, or they may simmer for hours, days, months. In the long-term case, you probably won't have the luxury of seeing it coming. And if you truly terrified them, they're going to want to do things to even the odds--bringing accomplices and firearms, say.

So, succeed or fail, intimidation can get you killed. It's a sucker's game.

"But Chris," you say, "If I'm not intimidating then I'm prey!"

Let's make a quick clarification here: the opposite of being intimidating is not the same as appearing meek, weak or helpless--it's simply not registering as prey. Looking like you know what you're doing, that you are aware, yet comfortably unconcerned, is more akin to being socially remote. That is, you've got the 'No Soliciting' sign out without being a jerk about it. Appearing unimpressed and unafraid is not the same as being intimidating.

You can project the confidence that you can handle yourself without threatening anyone.

A high order social skill? Probably one of the highest. And for many people, elusive. But it's a lot less harrowing than running around being intimidating, which is exhausting and scary at the same time.

I think of it like this:

"Go out of your way to get to the rest of your day."

When in the social arena, be social, use your social skills, and treat everyone like people. In the asocial arena treat everyone like meat. Don't confuse the two.

It doesn't mean you have to be everyone's friend, a 'push-over' or smile at daily human ugliness. It can be as simple as biting your tongue instead of spitting fuel on the fire. Of course, the hard part is if you're successful, you'll never know it. You'll never even be aware of the trouble you've dodged.

You can only ever be aware of the trouble you've caused.

Chris Ranck-Buhr

As a follow on note... we spent time with a group of officers at a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center going over these very concepts. These folks often felt handstrung by what they were allowed to do in potentially violent situations and were amazed during the class as they realized for the first time that their training was putting their lives at risk. And then we showed them how to instantly turn everything around in their favor. And now we've opened this private instruction for everyone to see in Justified Lethal Force. And I'm betting it'll open your eyes as well.

Labels: Intimidation, Justified Lethal Force