Looks like the UK press is still wrestling with the idea that in a life or death criminal assault effective self defense may mean you need to injure the assailant. I was interviewed for this article last month from arguably the worlds most prestigious newspaper, The Times of London.
The reporter was a very nice guy and seemed interested in the subject but uncomfortable with what it takes to survive in an extreme asocial criminal assault. Again the writer focused on the injuries an innocent person would put on the criminal that initiated the unprovoked potentially lethal attack.
There seems to be a disconnect about the fact the assailant attacked the innocent person with intent to do grievous bodily harm (GBH). But maybe I’m biased…
Read the article and let me know your thoughts on the subject. Is it extreme self defense or murder OR maybe just effective self protection?
Hey Tim:
I’ve trained with you in the past in Dallas, Tx and Vegas from 2005 through 06. I’m also a member of the distance group you’ve started. I think there is a cultural difference between many Europeans and US residents. After all, in the UK and much of Europe it’s very difficult for the average citizen to buy a pistol for example as I’m sure you’re well aware. As such, the author of this article seems almost to suggest the encounters for which you prepare people only happen to people who put themselves in harm’s way. He simply misses the point; or, chooses not to see it. There are people who do not care about your values, family, or life. More importantly, they have NO second or first thoughts about hurting or killing you to get what they want. There is value in preparing to deal with the worst of the worst among us because they don’t limit themselves to only those that place themselves in harm’s way – nightclubs as the writer offers up as an example. Perhaps one day the author of this story might learn that harm sometimes has a funny way of showing up on a street corner in broad daylight with the intent of removing him from his senses to steal a wallet or cell phone. He can pull out a pad and paper to write his attacker a list of well thought out reasons for why his behavior isn’t rational. I’d much rather learn the skills you offer to deal with a bad situation myself.
Comment by Christopher S. Everett — December 10, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
There’s the legal question and then the ethical question. Those two aren’t the same things. In the UK, they have abdicated the ethical question of protecting human rights and human life in favor of a politically sensitive supra goal designed for ulterior motives.
If you are biased, you are biased in protecting the interests of your clients, which includes things like staying out of jail and not being injured.
Few journalists, legal systems, and governments can say the same.
Comment by Ymarsakar — December 11, 2009 @ 1:48 am
hi tim,
i think it is a reasonable reaction to a life and death situation. i think the writer was trying to be flip in hsi writing. it was good they talked about visualizing people around him as attackers and his response. too many people go through life thinking that it will never happen to them. back to the question you posed, while it is necessary to protect yourself, in this society, people must expect and accept that they probably will be charged and sued for defending themselves. you gotta do what you gotta do.
Comment by mike — December 13, 2009 @ 12:56 am
I was slightly irked by this guys assumption that if you work in an office it is somehow bizarre that you would think it worth learning to defend yourself.
I was also disappointed by his flippant comment that he thought he might misinterpret a situation and “start maiming everyone in sight”. Considering the article is about “extreme self-defense” it neglects to mention the key point on the subject which is the differences between social, anti-social and asocial violence.
Having read Tim’s book no-one is going to be left with any misunderstandings that extreme self defense should only be applied in asocial situations and no-one would be in any doubt that the majority of “confrontations” fall into the social and anti-social realm and therefore can and should be walked away from.
Comment by Simon — January 2, 2010 @ 9:50 am
many people are very naive about the reality of a-social violence.They just don’t believe it can happen to them. Unitl it does happen to them or they see it up close happening to someone else.I agree with the last part of the article;staying out of dangerous places and away from dangerous people is the single best self defense strategy there is, but that is certainly no guarentee.In Chicago recently, a couple was viciously assaulted in a trendy area by a homeless man and women asking for a cigarette. They stomped the young womens head so bad she nearly died.Bad guys know how to cause injury. Any self defense eystem that does not focus on causing injury to the other guy is dangerous.I don’t agree at all about people who study sd are paranoid. They just become aware.
Comment by tom — January 2, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
This pathetic mindset – the liberal, morally superior, victim mindset – will take Europe where it doesn’t want to go – into slavery by any group, Islamic fundamentalists to name one, that will put a ring in its nose and lead it there.
Maybe the Times reporter watched the Stark Trek Episode “A Taste of Armageddon”. The inhabitants of the plantets Eminiar and Vendikar are in “evolved cultures” (like Europe), which finds bloodshed and fighting too “barbaric” so they determine how many casualties “need to be sacrificed” on computers (or by media editors)to placate their cowardly rulers, and the compliant citizens obediently report to disintegration chambers.
Tell me this isn’t what the reporter is really saying. And please tell me America hasn’t got there yet.
Comment by Alan — January 3, 2010 @ 8:46 am
I took TFT in Seattle. We definitely have a liberal component here in town, and probably majority of our class were liberal-leaning, but not stupid. We did read and look around at the goings-on.
Even after signing up and knowing the purpose, it still took us time to get over the social impulses. It was 3 hours before our instructors had enough of our good manners and kind words for each other, and came down hard. They said “no talking, just striking and reacting”. They made us face the asocial situation where there is nothing but kill or be killed.
If it took us 3 hours to get to business and only after the instructors came down hard on us, then this reporter is unlikely to grasp such situations in the space of an interview where he is in charge of the whole situation. He has the healthy squeamishness of a properly socialized person. He is even concerned about his attacker’s rights, like we were when asking “you ok?” when doing our drills. Both he and I (before TFT) wanted to believe that the rules of society are everywhere. They are not everywhere. Or they are everywhere except inside the brain of the attacker, how’s that?
Bob
Comment by bob luhrs — January 6, 2010 @ 9:55 pm
Meanwhile, outside of class, things around here took a turn for the worse lately as 4 police officers sitting in a coffee shop doing paperwork were all killed by a single assailant with a gun. They probably had instinctive suspicion of him, as they were 4 experienced officers and one must surely have seen him come in, knew the signs, etc. Too bad they did not get ready to attack him, as there was no possible defense.
Then a few days later, a 5th officer ran into this guy. They both drew their guns like in the Wild West, but the police won this round.
If you ignore the cause, the effect is always reprehensible. A cop killing someone is usually a thing they face criticism over. Too obvious this time. 4 notches are better than 5. Everybody but a news reporter who can’t do math would know that…
Comment by bob luhrs — January 7, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
Thanks for the insights.
There is a cultural schism that exists between those who have lived violently and are caught in it and those that choose to live “above” it, perhaps even never directly experiencing it. Those who live above it know a joy and freedom of expression that is a blessing. Those who are caught in it know only the expanse of fear and anger. The former will always be the victim of the later.
Today, those free of violence wish to no longer be the victims of violence. Violence is the primary tool of those angry, greedy and fearful people. If violence is an undeniable part of our world, like water; then the only way for those without fear and anger to transcend being victims will be to learn to swim without fear or anger.
The first step in being free is to be violent without fear and anger, not motivated by greed; simply the will to be and be free.
The second stage is to be known and accepted as different from those motivated by fear, anger and greed. For society will prosecute the violent if no clear distinction can be made and understood. Actions speak louder than words.
How do you prepare the surviving victim to deal with the arrest and trial for assault or murder charges? Civil suits for blinding their attackers or other lifelong injuries?
If you can’t convince a journalist in an interview, that there is a difference… If he goes off thinking of maiming rather than being free. He has failed to see the new segment emerging in the culture. He missed the bigger picture that you have worked so hard to cultivate.
More discussion on the difference in motivation rather than the similarity in methods is needed. A third empowered and fearless culture or segment that is respected, not feared must be mainstreamed: out of fear, but not of or for fear.
It’s good work, keep it going.
Comment by Bill — January 8, 2010 @ 1:54 am
According to the writer’s statistics, a person that goes clubbling “once” in a 2 month period is not in danger of being: car-jacked,kidnapped, and raped! He is dead wrong!
Comment by LaRene — January 8, 2010 @ 2:59 am
I hope the journalist’s last words are not”Oops I was wrong”. Or “please don’t hurt me”.
Comment by Lucinda Palestrant — January 8, 2010 @ 3:07 am
The article is just an opinion, and a inane one at that. Hollow words from a “News Reporter”…typical “Talking Head” being “politically correct”, dissociated with questionable reality testing.
Defense is the key word…Extreme is the only response a person can have if they want to avoid being a victim & survive, when assailed. Quickly put the perps out or in the hospital, then let the cops & lawyers sort it out after the fact (that’s all they are really paid to do anyhow). No one is going to help when the moment comes, except yourself…and it comes when you least expect it, “like a thief in the night”. Be Prepared.
Comment by Walt — January 13, 2010 @ 5:41 am
UK has been hijacked by what amounts to the sensibilities of university freshman females. They get emotional reactions to anything remotely violent, hold out knee jerk sympathy to predators who are somehow “misunderstood” and reachable and generally think like you would expect an adolescent female who hasn’t been exposed to self reliance in any way. Everything is a “Pity.”
The men, in order to fulfill basic sexual needs, have fallen into shadowing these attitudes in order to obtain intimacy from the females or employment in the chattering class occupations they dominate.
DH Lawrence identified it in his book, “As I lay dying.” when he realized what the school teachers sent out from London into the coal fields of Wales had done to their minds in regards to what acceptable manhood was. Essentially what was considered “Low” and what was considered “High” culturally.
UK deserves everything it gets, up to and including Islamic usurpation.
They were once a rational, thinking nation that was feared by it’s enemies and respected by it’s friends.
They have been reduced to a state of emasculation so grotesque in it’s completeness that it simply staggers the mind, inducing nausea whenever honest, thinking men reflect upon it.
I fear that only purification by disaster will ever set things back in balance. As the petroleum in the N. Sea runs out…which is what has funded their welfare state these last 20yrs…they will soon learn what they have created.
And they will cry for warriors to save them…
M
Comment by Msby — January 13, 2010 @ 6:29 am
Characterizing survival as needing a political motivation for a moral and ethical response is currently all the rage in the New World Order. All violence is bad. This is the “take away the guns” arguement. Who, then, will have guns? Prosecuting the discision to save life? NOT SMART. Bad guys are stopped AFTER commiting their crimes. Measured violence is prepared to act as a DETERRENT and can be as safe and effective as any such encounter can be. Doing nothing because of state mandated intimidation is the same as being mugged. In this day and age preparedness itself is under virtual attack on all sides before one ever faces a visceral encounter with a dirt bag. Somewhere over the rainbow that term is latin and legal.
Comment by JEFF — January 17, 2010 @ 6:21 am
Hey Guys,
I now live in Texas but was raised in the UK so it does not suprise me one bit about this reporters reaction. In UK criminals have more rights than the victims, all under the socialistic banner of human rights. It begs disbelief that someone can act like an animal when robbing, mugging, raping and commiting murder yet still be called ‘Human’…
I grew up during the 70’s and no-one would have put up with this nonsense, not the police or your average Brit, but the do-gooders have taken over and have this unrealistic, insane belief that if all just ‘talk’ and ‘discuss’ our ‘feelings’ then we will hold hands and skip down the streets together.
I was recently back on R+R from Afghanistan visiting family, my brother and I were out for the evening and had just enjoyed a great meal at a local restaurant, we left and were on our way to our vehicle when we were confronted by several thugs demanding ‘change’, we refused of course and were then treated to a torrent of verbal abuse that would make a DI blush, even those we tried to defuse the situation the thugs would have none of it and it escalated to the ‘attempted’ assualt stage, that was rather unfortunate for them as both by brother and I are trained Commando’s and are unarmed combat instructors teaching a similar form of defense and assault as the TFT program. Suffice to say we gave the scum a ’severe’ beating, one they will long remember, then we had to ‘leg-it’ as we would have been arrested and charged.. amazing isn’t it…
So to those contemplating if they should take this course my advice is a resounding yes… there is an old saying in Texas, Better to be judged by 12 good men than to be carried by 6.
Doc, Afghanistan
Comment by Doc — January 17, 2010 @ 7:03 am
Tim,
I haven’t taken your training yet but plan on it in the future. It simply amazes me how idiotic & essentially clueless the liberal mindset is when it comes to self-defense. Even here in Montana there are plenty of weenies who believe that the scum of our society are simply misunderstood, come from bad childhoods blah blah blah. I guess they just can’t imagine ruthless violent criminals who have no respect for the law or decency. A good friend of mine has a great solution; “Just shoot ‘em”. I just hope that those idiotic liberals who make excuses for the scum of every society never have to face one themselves. By the way, keep up the outstanding work you are doing! Krys
Comment by Krys — January 20, 2010 @ 6:20 am
Regretfully, it is the vocal liberals that are trying to protect the criminals that yell the loudest to make themselves sound important and caring for others…..that are the first to disappear in the time of trouble and almost never stand up to protect others when they would personnally be in danger. How did Shakepeare say it in Hamlet…..”The lady doth protest too much, methinks”. – (Act III, Scene II).
Comment by Clay — January 22, 2010 @ 1:09 am
This English person is an IDIOT. A (most likely soon to be) bleeding heart/body/arm/leg stastic in the “Criminal Review Board” or what ever they call the ‘learned professors’ at Cambridge or where ever. It seems that the UK needs to learn the lessons that Scotland taught them in the 1400’s AGAIN. Assullt needs and WILL be met with suprise, and superior movement/force/firepower.
(sorry, spelling is not my best subject…..)
Comment by Pat Vaughan — January 22, 2010 @ 5:23 am
Hi tim can someone with mild epilepsy learn target focus training.
And as for what they say about tft where I live in the uk is crap because what I have seen on your sample dvd speak truth to me and I can not wait to learn.
Cheers
Jason
Comment by jason — January 23, 2010 @ 1:59 pm
I am pushing 60 yo and both my wife and I are disabled. We both worked in ‘health’ care – yet ANOTHER intentional MIS-nomer blindly ‘accepted’ by our apathetic-society, ie, this ’system’ is 97-percent “Crisis” treatment. Too often, we saw such crises being the result of asocial actions and various forms of inflicted violence.
Such violence is never pretty & never comes from being ‘misunderstood’… BUT IT IS always intentional !
Trauma is dreadful -often dire- and NOT wanting to be victims ourselves, we both have concealed carry permits. We grew up with guns but were thinking of tactical-training with ‘Front-Sight’ – a great organization and although at a reasonable cost, they are not cheap.
It is not really convenient (or legal) to carry my gun all the time. Now, after briefly looking over your site here, I am pondering the TRUTH and old addage that a weapon gives you the advantage -UNLESS- it is taken,
& maybe turned against you.
NO chance of that with YOUR Tactics though, is there ?
I am going to look closer, but think I will be postponing our plans to travel cross country, AND saving a lot of money instead, ie, as soon as I buy your course tomorrow.
Thanks – hope to talk with you someday.
Comment by DR. CGA (MN, USA) — January 25, 2010 @ 6:13 am