The other day I posted this video on my Facebook page and got some interesting responses to it. First off, watch the video for yourself:

I posted this video because it showed excellent examples of strikes that cause injury… as well as punches and kicks that are ineffective. That alone was all I wanted people to comment on and learn from this video.

Most, however, focused on the fact the video showed security guards using excessive force against drunken thugs.

I got loads of private messages as well as comments to this effect. In fact, others reposted the video on their FB pages, decrying the fact this was outrageous behavior on the part of security and explaining how it would never fly in their country.

The general point they drove home was this type of response would land security personnel in their country in jail for excessive force. There were calls for better training for supermarket security personnel (really?).

I found this outcry humorous due to the fact that this was CCTV footage from Siberia… yes, Siberia. That part of the world has quite a “different” view on “excessive force”. As one of my Russian friends noted, he thought the security personnel were rather “restrained” in their response. Gee, maybe the world isn’t so black-and-white when it comes to violence like so many well meaning North American’s wish it were.
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 »

“As to methods there may be a million and then some, but principles are few. The man who grasps principles can successfully select his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

This past week I’ve been working on new Military and Law Enforcement training curriculums as we get ready to announce some long-requested seminar dates exclusively for these clients.

While putting together my notes I’ve read through literally hundreds of case studies and ‘after-action’ reports.

And I’m shocked by how apt the above Emerson quote is when it comes to how the military and LEO’s are trained to deal with kill-or-be-killed violence (reread the Emerson quote again before continuing).

There are so many incidents to choose from to illustrate my point but here’s the ‘Reader’s Digest™’ version of 2 such events… read this entry »

I can’t tell you how much Tim & I are looking forward to the Weapons Course in November.

We do a pretty thorough rundown of knife, stick and gun in the basic course–what the tools for violence do and don’t do, how to use them to your advantage, and how to take out the armed man. The only issue there is how much time we have to spend on getting people up to speed with violence–defining it, getting you to go where a sociopath would go, training you to destroy targets… much of the basic course gets spent disabusing people of the social niceties and into tearing apart another man.

The topics covered in a typical 2-Day course include:

• Intro to Violence
• Target Assembly (identifying and destroying targets)
• Free Practice (how to take it to nonfunctional)
• Striking Assembly (how to break things with your mass)
• Grabs, Holds & Chokes
• Social-Antisocial-Asocial (when violence is, and is not, appropriate)
• Knife
• Stick
• Gun
• Multiple Attackers

Across two days, I figure we get to spend maybe four hours, or 1/4 of the total course on weapons.

At the upcoming Advanced Weapons Course, we’re going to spend the entire 16 hours on that topic.

That’s four times as much as the basic course!

And because we don’t have to spend any time on the how or why of base violence, we can literally hit the ground running and explore as many aspects of the use of tools as we can cram into those two days. And we’re planning on cramming in a lot.

We’ve got tons of information that we usually don’t have time to get into in the basic course… and even then, it’s only really useful to someone who has the basic knowledge and hands-on skill that comes from completing either the 2-Day or even the $99 Half-Day training. Either qualifies you to attend this one.

It’s going to be an absolute pleasure working with people who know what’s going on, how to get it done, and want to know more.

Did I mention I’m looking forward to this? Tim got into town last night & it’s all we talked about, so, yeah, I can’t wait.

See you in Vegas,

Chris Ranck-Buhr
Master Instructor

On today of all days, I can imagine at least one reason.

In the 14 years that I taught hand-to-hand combat through a university recreation department I got called on the carpet with this, and similar questions, about once every six months. My answer was always the same, and though uneasy, the powers that be were satisfied every time.

On the surface, there is no good reason. Or, more correctly, we don’t like to think we live in a world where there would ever be a good reason for the average citizen to know how to take a life with his or her bare hands. The natural reaction for anyone happening across this information, this training, out of context should be to recoil in horror. It stands in stark contrast to the world we believe we are building and would like to imagine we live in. A world where it would never be necessary for anyone — ourselves or our children — to know how to do this.

But you know better.

There’s the world we think we’re building, but that paradise of love, comfort and all the good things about being social animals really only exists where we can physically reach — the immediate space around us and the confines of our own homes. In those places we live in the world we make on a daily basis, a place where we actively work to do the opposite of acrimony, strife and violence.

But it’s all imaginary.

That’s not to say it’s not real — my own personal and home lives are the exact opposites of the work I do — but it is entirely dependent on me actively keeping it so. And it’s as fragile as a little girl’s tea party with pets and dolls. All it takes is a single person who has chucked the rules and believes in complete opposition as I do and is willing to step across those imaginary boundaries and impose his own physical reality upon me.

None of the imaginary ideas protect you from the physical facts of violence — not fairness, not personal dignity, not how much someone loves you, not even the difference between right and wrong. This is where we become such brilliant victims, when we think these things will protect us from violence. Living well and treating people fairly — being demonstrably good — may work to keep you out of trouble, making violence less likely to start, but it does nothing for you once the trigger is pulled.

I wish we lived in a world where those things did matter in the face of violence. I wish my children had no need or cause to learn how to hurt people. But ignoring it won’t make it go away. Wishing it didn’t exist only makes you a victim when someone who knows the facts picks you as prey. So while I work to build that world we all wish we lived in, I’ll hedge my bet by knowing how to break someone’s neck in case the world of ideas ever fails me.

It is demonstrated, with sickening regularity, that a single person (or small group) who knows how to use violence can wreak great havoc on much larger groups of people who don’t. Having a single person on the other side who knows what to do, how to act, how to meet that threat with an equal threat can change everything. The balance ceases to be one predator among many prey and becomes at least an even chance. Which is far better than most sane, law-abiding citizens ever get in the face of violence.

When confronted with the question, my answer was always the same. It’s easy to dismiss it when it’s just an abstract concept. Breaking someone’s neck is antithetical to everything we hope for. So I made it personal:

“If someone came to kill your mother, wouldn’t you want her to know how?”

It’s not nice, it’s not comfortable, it is the unthinkable. But grudgingly, in the face of the world of ideas parting like fog before the murder’s blade, the answer is yes.

“I’ve watched all the NY videotapes and they have totally transcended my expectations. I’ve purchased [other] tapes and even attended [other live training] camps.  I thought I had a pretty good grasp of all the principles involved. However, the quantity AND quality of information on these tapes just blew me away completely.”

James Carruthers,
Hillsborough, NC

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?

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.