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

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

Everyone recognizes the lethal power of firearms--so much so that something as simple as showing one can change people's minds. Guns are often the exclamation point at the end of an argument.

If what you know how to do with our bare hands is the same, ultimately, as the work of a bullet, wouldn't it also follow that you could somehow convince people to do what you say in the same fashion? Can you not inspire that same mortal fear and get things done without having to use what you know?

Can you 'flash the gun' of knowledge?

Most people see the progression in use of force with bare hands being the least effective, sticks and knives being better, and firearms being the end-all be-all. This makes obvious sense, as most people are completely untrained in the use of their bare hands and so work at that level is entirely inefficient and haphazard. Knives and sticks amplify effort and magnify trauma, allowing even the untrained to do potentially lethal damage. Firearms pre-package the requirements for injury, needing nothing more than a trigger-pull and an intersecting vector to get the job done.

To truly understand violence as universal and equivalent, no matter what the circumstance or tool, you have to ditch the idea of progression and see the firearm not as the end of the line but as an excellent example of what's required in violence, period.

This is why we are fond of saying the goal of violence is to do the work of a bullet with your bare hands.

Understanding this--truly and viscerally--is the key to making violence universal and equivalent. You want the end result to be identical whether you shot him, stabbed him, or broke him with a stick or 'just' your bare hands. In each case you want him non-functional.

All of those various methods are really one idea--striking. They are all the delivery of the largest amount of kinetic energy you can muster through vulnerable anatomy. The knife, stick and the ends of your skeleton all driven by your entire mass in motion; the bullet driven by energy stored in chemical bonds. Striking someone with a fist or a bullet can be equivalent acts if you know what you're doing. Ultimately, shooting someone is just striking them at range.

In the world of equivalent violence, the only advantage that firearms have are a reduction in personal effort and an increase in range.

Outside of that world, in the world of the antisocial--primate domination games or 'monkey politics'--firearms do have one aspect that we cannot replicate with our bare hands--the universal transmission of implied intent. They can convey the instantaneous understanding of mortal threat.

Of course, this is not a recommended use of the tool, as you just might succeed in intimidating someone who is willing to kill you... and then it's on and you're a half-step behind.

Waving a gun around screams, “Do what I say/go away or I will kill you,” in every language possible, all at once.

But what happens when someone trains with us and learns how to replicate the work of a bullet with their bare hands, learns the universality and equivalency of violence but still wants to play at monkey politics?

How do you wave that 'gun' around?

They've learned all this new cool stuff, eye-opening and mind-blowing, and it looks like the Final Word in monkey politics--visually, violence and primate dominance can look the same if you squint a little:

- Monkey slapping with one primate whaling away while the other goes fetal

- Destruction where one person puts the other down and keeps him there.

Violence appears to be a great tool for getting this done--it entirely truncates the back-and-forth so often seen in monkey politics. So how do you wave that 'gun' around?

You can't verbally warn them--talk is cheap. Your words aren't going to stun them like flashing a real gun would.

How about if you 'go easy' or slap them around for the purposes of dominance? Without 'really' hurting them?

This is a very dangerous conceit. The sad fact is, there is no way to wave your knowledge or intent around in a way that would do the work of showing a gun. Knowing how to do violence regardless of the circumstance or tool is like having an invisible gun. If you said to a group of people, “I have an invisible gun,” they would all laugh at you or think you were insane. If you shot one of them dead, everything would change. Then they would know.

This is the essential problem of violence in monkey politics. Telling people you know how to do it isn't going to have an effect. Demonstrating it hypothetically for the purpose of example, "See, I could do this," just leads to argument. It's all just wind and noise until you stomp somebody down and curb them in front of everybody else. That's the sound of the invisible gun going off--unmistakable, instantly recognized the world over.

But ultimately 'unwavable'--there's no way to show it without doing it. And that makes it entirely unsuitable for the needs of monkey politics.

PS. This also gives us a non-ambiguous answer to the question, "When do I use violence?" The answer: "Anytime you would pull out a gun and empty the clip into someone." Burns off a lot of crap, doesn't it?

Labels: criminal violence, gun, intent, Justified Lethal Force, lethal force self defense

Last week I wrote about how we have found it far more useful to keep training for violence grounded in the physical instead of the metaphysical. We received a lot of thoughtful responses to that, some of which I hope to respond to in kind (that is, thoughtfully and respectfully) in future installments.

One thing that stood out in the responses was the many ways people interpret intent. It seems to take on an air of philosophical mystery, to become Intent with a capital I, an ineffable, nigh unattainable Mystic State that the sociopath is somehow able to turn on and maintain. This is, of course, the danger anytime the conversation veers out of the physical.

In isolating what makes violence effective, you can clearly see that debilitating injury is key - it changes everything in your favor and converts that awful, scary man into an injured man, helpless to keep you from causing further harm. Injury is the result of penetration (body weight in motion) and rotation (the complete follow-through) through a vulnerable piece of anatomy. Again, this can be clearly seen in video evidence of successful violence. (As well as accidents involving people colliding with people and people colliding with the ground.)

But something's missing from that seemingly perfect equation. The way that successful person gets it done. He's not timid, he doesn't dance around, he's not counting coup, scoring points, or behaving as if he's worried he'll be countered, or even killed. He goes in like the result is a foregone conclusion.

How do you define that?

We also knew how we would do it - plow in, focused above all on getting that injury, not stopping until we got all the injuries we wanted. Was it the same thing we were seeing in the videos?

Again, how to describe this so others can do it too, not just the insane and the highly trained? Is it 'confidence?' 'Pure offense?' We've used both of those descriptors in past training, with varying degrees of success - 'confidence' clicked for some, 'offense' clicked for others. Still, both had almost metaphysical connotations for most, providing not a ramp to success but a speed bump.

We settled on intent. As in, 'intent to cause harm.' This felt like the cleanest, simplest way to express what we could see in the videos and feel for ourselves when we worked.

Intent is wanting this:

http://www.scrum.com/images/content/knee.jpg

To the exclusion of all else.

Now, this unfortunate image is not showcasing intent (one would hope). It's purely a picture of gut-wrenching injury. It's unambiguous, it's horrible, and it's what you have to want more than anything in order to survive. When you go after a man's knee, this is the result you have in mind, and you won't be happy with anything less.

This is what the sociopath wants, and it's what he's gunning for when he comes after you. Maybe not a broken knee specifically, but a broken something. A broken anything. He knows nothing changes in his favor until he gets it. So he goes straight for it. No fighting stance, no blocking, no engagement - just straight to injury. And he gets this idea not from a book, or meditation, or mental exercises... he gets it from the simple realization that he doesn't have to do anything more complicated than 'hurt people' to get what he wants.

Intent is making a beeline for the desired result. In violence that result is injury.

Labels: criminal violence, injury, intent, mind-set, self defense

"Why don't you guys train a mind-set or philosophy?"

This was the essence of a question I received recently in an email.

The writer was pleased with the physical side of our training, but was curious as to why we didn't provide a psychological or philosophical component to tie it all together. He argued, and rightfully so, that mind-set training can have a positive impact on performance. Something along the lines of 'think hard, be hard.'

I agree that mind-set training can be beneficial (my previous posts on Building and Being the Better Monster are essentially speaking to this), but only across a longer timeframe. In the here and now, especially for people who are going to train once or rarely, it's of very little use.

It's far more important that they practice the correct physical realities of violence than work to get themselves wound up into a meat-eating lather.

Look at it this way: If someone accidentally trips and falls into another man such that the impact breaks that man's knee, we end up with a very interesting situation. We have a 'fight-ending' injury that results from nothing more than physics & physiology. No mind-set required. In fact, part of the definition of an accident like this one is an absence of malice.

This is the cleanest possible example of why mind-set doesn't matter. We'd all like to think it does, to get ourselves psyched up, to give ourselves some kind of mental yardstick to show whether we are ready or not--but in the end it's going to come down to biomechanics. Period.

After all my years of teaching I've come to the conclusion that talk of mind-sets gets in the way of what has to be done--injuring another human being.

I can't tell you the number of times I've watched someone work beautifully on the mats only to have them ask me afterwards, "Do I have killer instinct yet?"

It's far more useful to talk about intent, or, simply 'the willingness to get it done.' This is what the sociopath has--no training, no practice, but scads of intent. They just want to do it. And that want drives the physics forward into the physiology.

It must be said that there would seem to be little difference between the two, intent on the one hand and a particular mind-set on the other. But the difference is this: While we talk about cultivating a mind-set and believe we are being clear, it ends up being a Mystery (with a capital 'M') to most people. A mystic state, like Enlightenment, to be sought after. Yet, somehow, the sociopath lucks into it naturally and without the effort of mental gymnastics.

Instead of TALK it's much more powerful to DO--that is, physically model success in violence serially, over and over and over again until it's easy. Second nature. Out of that physical experience you can organically grow your own confidence in your skills and, consequently, the intent to drive it home.

In other words, physical work will do far more than philosophy to prepare you for actual violence.

We can, of course, get into a 'chicken & egg' debate on this--mind-set training to drive the physical forward or physical training to give rise to intent? Over the last 20 years I've done it both ways, and while they each (eventually) arrive at the same endpoint, pushing the physical first has produced the best results. 'Results' here being minimizing training time while maximizing survival.

Or, more concretely, having someone attend a 1-Day Seminar--or view a single DVD--and then take out someone who meant to do them harm. Not merely surviving, but winning in the biggest way possible.

This would have been unthinkable in the days when we pushed mind-set training first.

Chris Ranck-Buhr
TFT Master Instructor

Labels: intent, mind-set, self-defense training

In Building a Better Monster, I talked about how people build up insanely powerful adversaries (bigger, faster, stronger) and place them in impossible scenarios (it was a dark and stormy night, he has night-vision goggles and a chainsaw) and then ask, "How do I deal with that?" My advice was, essentially, to build him up and then be him.

Everyone gets the building up part--we're all experts in that even before we walk through the door to train. The question is, of course, how to best get it done?

The short answer is: Figure out why you've decided it's going to work for him.

And the even shorter answer to that is: INJURY. But you already knew that.

The long answer is: When you build the better monster you've already decided that he's going to do something to you that you're worried you cannot prevent and will have a poor outcome for you.

We can pick that apart to find the salient points, the places where you have recognized (consciously or not) several truths about violence:

1) He is going to do things to you.

This has two important components--the recognition that he has intent and resides in the cause state.

2) You can't stop what he is doing.

This is recognition that blocking is a sucker's game, that being in the effect state is not nearly as effective as being in the cause state.

3) Injury will make you helpless.

This is the 'poor outcome' you fear--you get injured, go down and get more injured in a downward spiral that can only really bottom out with death.

The real trick to make this self-defeating process worth your while is to flip it inside out--you've built your monster, you've figured out why it's going to work for him--now all you have to do is put yourself in the position of this impossible person. Think like the predator you are and resolve yourself to making the realities of violence work for you instead of against you:

1) You are going to do things to him.
2) He can't stop what you've already done.
3) Injury will make him helpless.

Now you see how the two of you are interchangeable--the driver's seat of violence is up for grabs and belongs to the first person to buckle in and romp on the gas. The other guy gets run over and leaves a star on the windshield.

Which leads us, through the clumsiest of segues, to the fact that no one is immune to violence, and what that reality does for him. And can do for you...

People seek training because what they really want is immunity from violence. It's not the idea of doing it they find appealing, but the idea of preventing it. I know this was true for me.

But then we give them an ugly, unpopular truth--nothing can make you immune & you're on your own.

You're either going to injure him, put him down and savage him on the ground or he's going to do it to you. You're not going to have superior, 'no can defend' technique or superhuman abilities. It's just going to be you and your willingness to tear another human being apart. You're very probably going to take a beating in the process, and you can, whether through inaction, miscalculation, or just plain dumb luck end up on the receiving end of the tool of violence.

No matter how hard and long you train, you can be murdered.

This is the bitterest pill to swallow. It leads to all sorts of 'well, what's the point then?' questions. If I can end up just as dead with or without training, why bother? This disconnect is the same one that often occurs for people with firearms--they believe that somehow the gun will 'defend' them, not realizing that they are going to have to shoot the other guy to death to make it work... and it's even worse with knives. It's going to be messy and noisy and scary well beyond what you can imagine. But the end result is, after a fashion, 'defense' in that dead people can't hurt you.

So why bother? Well, prior to training you were rolling dice. We show you how to 'play the game' with loaded dice. So you end up with an edge.

That edge is only going to mean anything if you accept the inborn frailty of your body as you harden your mind to the task at hand--you, crippling another man for life. There is nothing you can do to make your body immune to injury; the only thing you can change is the amount of intent in your head.

It's going to work for him because he wants to cause injury and throws everything he has into making that idea a reality. He has intent.

It's going to work for him because he is acting on the realities of violence as they stand--he is going to use what works and get it done first because he knows no one is immune... he is acting on the fact that he can be taken. This is why he hits first, why he wades in and goes for broke. He knows if he breaks you first, he is far less likely to have any of it done to him. He knows if he waits he's done for.

This is why you fear him. It is also the key to unlocking the power that causes that fear, the key to harnessing it and making his super-scary power your own.

Turn it inside out and wear it instead of having it wear on you.

Be what you fear.

Labels: criminal violence, intent, self defense

Invariably, we get questions along the lines of...

"Okay, I get all that violence stuff--but what if he's bigger/faster/stronger/(your favorite celebrity masher here)/has a knife/stick/gun/three guns?"

That's a great question.

Or it would be if that's what they really meant. More often than not people build a monster in their head around a single overarching fear...

And before I reveal what that fear is, let's take a look at some specifics:

When people look at a larger, stronger man what they're really registering is his potential ability to generate power. He could pick you up and throw you across the room, right? Heck, he could probably pick up and throw a Volkswagen.

What they ignore is that though he may have more human tissue than you, he's still made of meat. And meat can be butchered.

Fast and skilled fall into the same category -- the desire for a "duel."

This typically comes from people who are worried about "getting in."

This is particularly funny as I've never seen a prison murder where the participants had any difficulty "getting in" on each other; I'm sure this idea would make serial killers shrug as well.

In short, professionals who use violence in their day-to-day are conspicuously unconcerned with "getting in." And so should you be.

But what if he's armed?

Well, if I have a knife and he has a knife, I stab the knife, right? Of course not.

So why the hell does this make a difference if he has a tool and I'm using fists and boots? It just means you'll beat him to nonfunctional instead of shooting or stabbing him to nonfunctional.

Ah, but now we're getting to the super-secret fear that is hidden at the core of all these questions--these questions that are all saying:

"I'm afraid he has intent to do what I won't."

Everyone builds a better monster around the idea of superior intent. The bigger/faster/stronger smokescreen is just worry that he's turned up willing to deliver a serious beating that ends in a brutal curbing while you're just there to look the "hard boy" or have a manly slap-fight. You know, the kind where no one really gets hurt.

The tool, though, now that's different.

When he pulls out a labor-saving device whose sole purpose is to rend meat and break bones, well now he's showing superior intent--intent you're worried you can't match.

If you're just there to posture and look the part--if you're just there to duel and teach someone a lesson--then what the hell is he up to with that man-mangler? We all know the answer to that.

Everyone recognizes, on a visceral level, that the armed man is displaying intent they don't have.

And that's what everyone's afraid of. Superior intent!

All the sideways questions, all the building of better monsters is just dancing around this issue--"What if he's really here to kill me?"

I mean, really, this time?

The recognition that this just might be so, and you can't or won't match it, intent-wise, is the core fear that everyone harbors.

The dull toll of fear echoing in the "intent gap" is what I hear whenever anyone asks one of these questions.

They're not even consciously aware of it. They'll deny it when pressed.

My advice is to build your better monster--bigger, faster, stronger, meaner, armed in a dark alley. Add in a dash of rainy, moonless night. Pile it on.

And then... you need to become him.

-Chris Ranck-Buhr

Labels: competition, criminal violence, intent, self defense