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

It boggles my mind sometimes, how we can be as careful and clear as possible in making the case for surviving and winning in violence and still have it come out garbled on the other end.

But I suppose people hear what they want to hear, and if all your preconceptions about violence have you in the victim role, then all violence is about victimization. And fear.

1. If they do it first, the situation resolves in their favor and,
2. They themselves are not immune to such an injury.

Number one is simple enough. It’s what separates the winners from the victims in violent conflict. The real power, however, comes from number two. If it works the same on you, then it probably works the same on every human on the planet.

If you’ve already been stabbed because stabbing is what he’s up to, ignoring it, trying to talk to him or running only keep you in the victim-space he needs to get the job done.

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.

A frequent question I hear has to do with the so-called ‘unavoidable antisocial situation’ — the belligerent drunk who picks you, you get the luxury of seeing it coming, but there is no escape. What then?

I invite you to read this tragic article about the recent death of a soldier under similar circumstances:

Soldier dies after bar fight over Jimmy Buffett song

My heart goes out to his friends and family — as someone who has lost a loved one to violence, I know how it feels. It punches a hole in your life, hollows you out, and nothing is ever the same again.

Also note that we had three similar incidents here in San Diego just last year — an argument goes to fisticuffs, and someone winds up dead. In all of these cases, that was not the intent of the activity. But that’s how it wound up. One life needlessly taken and innumerable others changed forever.

Regardless of what you may think, you don’t have to go there. Most of the time when people claim it’s unavoidable what they’re really saying is they don’t want to leave, not that they can’t.

Everyone gets the difference between the antisocial and the asocial, or at least when we paint it in bold strokes — the senseless and avoidable bar fight on one end, and home invasion/murder on the other. The answer to the first one is don’t play along — use your social skills to solve it, up to and including just plain getting the hell out of there. The answer to the second one is injury, injury, injury.

But what about that fuzzy part in the middle?

First, a couple of things about why it’s even a question:

1) You recognize that you don’t really want to hurt him, and this lack of intent pretty much defines the antisocial. You know violence is inappropriate in this situation and that even if you’re victorious there could be serious legal repercussions.

2) I don’t think you’re trying hard enough to get away. I think you’re still hung up on the ego of the whole situation and you’d really rather not leave. Whether it’s because you think others will think less of you, you’ll lose face or social standing, or can’t face yourself — you’ve still got ego tied up in it. And that’s a proven killer.

And now, some answers:

Q: Is it possible to ‘take someone out’ without hurting them?

A: Sure, as long as they’re a quitter to begin with. If they’re not, you’re in for a hell of a fight. And if they read the situation differently, you can end up in the hospital or dead. It ends up as a roll of the dice — most of the time people don’t die in bar fights. When they do, everyone’s really sorry. And while I’m sure the dead men never expected it, it only had to happen to them once.

If you’re interested in such things, pretty much everybody else out there trains for the antisocial. Just be aware that you’re stuck doing what you train, and it’s almost impossible to switch back and forth. It’s far easier to train for violence and then literally go out of your way to avoid the stupid stuff.

And as a cop friend of mine says, “It’s all stupid stuff.”

Q: Does violence work in the antisocial realm?

A: Yes it does. Like gangbusters. Regardless of the venue, from sport to competition to brawling to killing, breaking things inside of people is a show-stopper. And while you can go a long way by avoiding targets known to be killers — crushing the throat, breaking the neck, bouncing the brain off the sidewalk or kicking a downed man in the head — you’re still rolling the dice.

I’ve read at least one paper that discussed a fatality from a strike to the side of the neck, and heard tell of another, so you never know. You can go in to ‘just knock the wind out of him’ and end up giving him a heart attack, should he already be at risk (not something you could know just looking at him).

In the end, you risk your life whenever you break the physical plane. I won’t hesitate to bet my life when my life’s at stake — but it’s just plain stupid to bet your life when it’s about ego.

Go out of your way to get to the rest of your day. If that means there are establishments you just don’t go to because they have a reputation for aggressive antisocial behavior, then so be it. If it’s your kink to hang out in places like that, just realize you’re choosing to ignore the risk and it’s all on you.

Me, I’d rather not have my night — and a nice dress shirt — ruined by an antisocial run-in I was too ‘manly’ to avoid. Even if you ‘win’ chances are you’ll need stitches and a lawyer. And if you lose, well, it could mean your life.

For what?

Chris Ranck-Buhr,
TFT Master Instructor

PS. If you missed them, check out both my recent comments on the post below (just click on the ‘comments’ link, mine are near the bottom of the screen that opens up).

The words we choose to describe things shade and flavor our perception of those things; this can be to our benefit or detriment. Any given word gives rise to a whole cloud of associations, some better than others. For example, take the words attacker and defender. It’s easy to associate speed, aggressiveness, initiative, strength, power and evil with the role of the attacker and tasked, hounded, reactive, protective and good with the role of the defender.

So which one is better to be, if you had the choice?

Again, this is one of those trick questions where everyone shouts, “Attacker!” and then turns around and uses the language and posture of the defender when it comes down to action. Why? Especially when you know it’s better to be the attacker — it works great for the criminal, the killer, the survivor… it means you have the initiative, you are, by definition, in the cause-state, doing instead of getting done.

And all it gets is lip service.

You do it because socially, it’s wrong. It’s evil, it’s immoral, it’s not what your mom, your clergy, or the cops would like you to do. Such behavior is corrosive to the social fabric; behaving like a killer is to take on the mantle of the killer. It’s unsporting. It’s unfair. It’s the very definition of cruel.

And you can’t think of yourself in those terms.

Now, I’ve tried to talk about this before, but maybe I’ve been too vague or too nice, I don’t know. But I’m here now to tell you:

You either see yourself as the person stomping on the downed man or you are the downed man.

No ifs, ands or buts.

And again, before you protest, check yourself. A lot of the language I see floating around when people talk “reality self-defense” is the language not of killers, but of people trying to justify that role, to feel better about it. Trying on the mantle of the killer, finding it distasteful, and then looking for logical constructs to make it fit better, to give yourself sufficient reason to try it on in the first place.

Justification can only effect mechanical performance in one direction — to make it poorer.

The attacker has no justification. This is why, socially, we find it distasteful, wrong, and evil. But all the attacker has to do is attack. One simple thing.

The role of the defender is a justifiable one. We can explain away our need to behave in a socially unacceptable way by virtue of being attacked. Because we have accepted the number two slot, and dumped ourselves into the effect-state, it’s okay with mom, et. al. The only problem is that being a defender is a very busy job, with lots to try to do. We have to register the attack, attempt to counter it, and only then may we attempt a counter-attack. If you’ve seen our live “knife-defense” demo, then you know how well that works out… And for those who haven’t seen it, here’s the breakdown: it works like gangbusters for the stabber, not so great for the stabee.

Even if you are resolved to be a bloodthirsty and vicious defender, you’re still applying the loser moniker. Best of luck with that.

Ultimately, you have to ditch even the idea of being an attacker — lose the attacker/defender dichotomy entirely. Because really, what makes a difference in violence is not self-defense, or even fighting — it’s all about hurting people. It’s what you’ll do when there are people around you who need to get hurt. Who need to get maimed, dropped on the ground, crippled so they stay there, and maybe even killed.

That’s all I train. When people ask me what I do, the simplest answer is, “I teach people how to kill sociopaths.” Not only is it the simplest, it’s also the most accurate. And after that, I don’t waste my time or breath trying to justify it — and most people demand justification after a statement like that — because trying to make them feel better about it is really just me trying to make me feel better about it. And there is no feeling better about it. In a social context, it’s wrong.

But we’re never talking about a social context, are we? Not unless the Virginia Tech shooting was a garden party. So there’s no feeling good or bad about it — there’s only what’s mechanically correct. And trying to make it sound or feel better just convinces us it’s okay to be in second place. We all know that’s a lie.

Or do we?

Depends on how much mat time you get. The more you actually model the behaviors we present, the more comfortable you’ll be with the mechanical facts of violence, and seeing yourself as the person doing them. At that point it stops being words and becomes the only way to be in violent conflict.

How hard would you stomp on a man’s neck if your life depended on it? Hard enough to break it, right? And how hard to you think that is? Probably with everything you’ve got. You’d do it as hard as you possibly could, and that’s the right answer. The human body is tougher than you’d think — it can take an awful lot of punishment before it breaks.

What about the eye? It’s far more fragile than the neck, and much easier to injure, if by “easy” we mean “requiring less effort.” Does this mean we can get away with striking the eye less hard than we would the neck?

Well, yes and no.

Yes, in an absolute sense — it’s possible to cause serious injury to the eye with an almost trivial engagement of effort. If you lacerate his cornea with your pinkie nail, you’ll effectively blind the man. His eyes will squeeze shut and begin to water profusely. He’ll have trouble keeping them open.

While this injury is sufficient, meaning we put enough effort into it to overcome the natural resiliency of the tissues involved, it’s far from optimal…

So the answer is no in a real sense. While there’s a good chance we could get away with doing less to the eye than the neck and still ending up with an injury, there’s also a chance, because we’re coming in at the weak end of the scale for effort, that we might not make it over that threshold for injury. What does this mean?

It means that if I believe I can “go light” on the eyes and still cause an injury, I might not go hard enough to actually get that injury. And then I’m screwed.

Far better to go after his eyes the same way you’d break his neck: put everything you’ve got into it. Not only are you guaranteed an injury (as long as you actually hit the target and follow all the way through, like a bullet would), but you stand a good chance of getting additional injuries from the sudden motion of his head (concussion) and a knockdown if you successfully take his balance in the bargain. None of that can happen if you go easy just because it’s the eye.

That initial stomp to the neck — with all your body weight over it, driven down and through as hard as you can — is a great reference point for all striking to all possible targets. No matter which important piece of anatomy you’re going for, from crushing the throat to crippling the arm via the radial nerve, you must strike them all as hard as you can. Same goes for joint breaks and throws.

“Getting away with something” means you were lucky that one time; crushing it beyond functioning takes all the luck out of it and gets you the desired result regardless of how the dice roll or the cards fall.

When you max out the laws of physics you know you’re going to break that neck, rupture that eye, put that man down so he can’t get back up again.

Anything less is leaving injury to chance. Most of the time it won’t make any difference — until your life is at stake.

There is a level of confusion about what it is exactly that we do, confusion that I am, quite frankly, tired of hashing and rehashing. There are deep-seated biological, psychological and societal reasons for this confusion — and so it is perfectly natural for this confusion to persist — but as an instructor it frustrates me because treading back and forth across this well-worn rut doesn’t make you any better at doing violence.

The only thing that makes you any better is getting the mechanics down pat — how & where to cause injury, and how to best take advantage of that fact. Everything else is just mental masturbation that feels important because it tastes like philosophy with a little bit of work mixed in. You think you’re working while avoiding doing any of the real work that will make you better at doing violence, namely getting a reaction partner and hitting the mats regularly.

I am going to flog a dead horse again today, but my goal is to flay it to the bone (or finally sell it off if you take the original meaning); I want to take it to its absurd, logical conclusion beyond which there is no more jaw-flapping:

What we teach is violence, which is what you need to do when someone wants to murder you.

So where’s the confusion, you ask, that seems pretty clear-cut. And that’s what I think, too. But then the questions start:

Why would I ever need to know how to kill someone?

Won’t I get in trouble if I use this in a bar fight?

But what if he’s got X and/or Y and he’s coming at me like so?

How do I do it to someone who knows what you guys know?

What if he does it first?

Or one of the infinite facets of the question that tells me you don’t really believe that bigger-faster-stronger doesn’t matter. You WANT to believe, but you don’t.

Where does all the confusion come from? It arises because you think you know what you’re seeing, and you’re looking at it through the wrong mental porthole. When fists and feet are flying, you see monkey politics. You see competition. It’s all Great Apes working out dominance and submission. Don’t feel bad — you’re hardwired to recognize and respond to this. It’s only natural. Which is why I want to start the violence conversation off with one guy shooting another guy to death.

Watching one person kill another with a firearm won’t ping your monkey brain. It’ll go far deeper, down into the lizard-level, the primeval predator level. You’ll see it for what it is — killing. If we look at the underlying mechanics we have:

kinetic energy delivered through anatomy, wrecking it

And now we have the perfect model to work backwards from. Keep the killing context, keep the wrecked anatomy in mind and now look at other ways of effecting that outcome:

kinetic energy delivered through anatomy, wrecking it

So, a fist, a boot, a pipe, a shin, etc., etc., it doesn’t matter what as long as it’s doing the work that a bullet does, if only in a generic sense. So now if we line up a series of killings and look at them side-by-side, a shooting, a bludgeoning, a knifing, getting hit by a car — we should be able to see the clear, underlying principles that govern all of these equally and immutably. Learning how to wield these principles is the ‘getting the mechanics down pat’ I mentioned earlier.

All clear, right? No, back to the confusion: everyone gets the gun and the car, but they feel iffy about the pipe and the knife, and downright scoff at the fist, boot, or shin.

Why?

Because you read it with your monkey politics filter and think there’s something you can do about it. “I can’t dodge bullets but I can block a punch.” This is the ultimate in hubris and sends you down a negative feedback spiral: if you can ‘handle’ a punch, then of course he can ‘handle’ it when you’re trying to do it to him. You’re pissing in your confidence reservoir and your training will look hesitant and spotty. And that’s exactly where your skill will go. You’re thinking that you’re fighting when we really want you doing something completely else.

We are trying to teach you how to kill murderers. Everything that fits that narrow model benefits you. Anything that sounds out of place or silly in that context is nothing but crap.

That’s why ‘murder’ is the final word in context. Almost no one knows what to do when that’s what’s up. ‘Fighting’ and ‘defense’ are worthless in that arena — remember that defense wounds are found on corpses and tell the coroner that that person ‘fought for their life.’ You’re not going to fight anyone for your life. You’re going to kill a murderer.

Armed with this ‘new’ context, let’s look at the common questions:

Why would I ever need to know how to kill someone?
If that someone is a murderer, then ipso facto. It’s like asking, “If drowning can kill me, why learn how to swim?”

Won’t I get in trouble if I use this in a bar fight?
Yes. Yes, you will.

But what if he’s got X and/or Y and he’s coming at me like so?
[cue sarcasm] Then you should act enraged and execute a bluff charge and pray he’s playing by the same rules — that he’s spoiling for a fight and not a murder. Would you ask the same question with a firearm or a steering wheel in your hand? Of course you laugh, but a crushed throat and a gouged eye don’t care if it was bullets, hood ornaments or boots that did it. So why should you?

How do I do it to someone who knows what you guys know?
Injured is injured, dead is dead, regardless of talent or training.

What if he does it first?
Then you have nothing to worry about.

Bigger-faster-stronger?
The murderer doesn’t care — in fact, that’s one reason why he’s successful. And that should inform your thinking on the subject.

Here’s the bottom line: check yourself and stick with what matters. Is your question, your doubt, your worry rooted in the mechanics of injury or is it stuck in monkey politics, in ‘fighting?’ Be honest with yourself. If it’s the mechanics, we can work on that, show you what to do, how to do it. After that it’s on you to hit the mats with a partner and take ownership of it. If it’s competition, monkey politics, or has anything to do with communication or changing behavior, then it’s immaterial and meaningless in the context of killing a murderer.

Because you don’t talk to, try to best or even fight with murderers. You kill them.

Or carry a knife, for that matter?

There are a lot of good arguments to be made for doing both instead of spending the money, time and effort to train to use your body as a weapon. It takes far less effort to purchase and carry an extraneous tool — and far less effort to use it to good effect. In fact, that’s the whole reason behind weapons — they are labor-saving implements that magnify our efforts and make short work of any assailants. It doesn’t take any training at all to kill someone with a gun or knife, though both can benefit from specific instruction.

So, again, why bother?

Because guns can run out of ammo and/or jam, knives can be dropped, and both have to be on you, near you, gotten at and deployed to be of any use.

In other words, if you can only kill a man with a knife or gun, you’re harmless without one.

If you can’t do the same work as a knife or gun with your bare hands, then you’re hopelessly overmatched when the other guy has one and you don’t.

When you learn how to use your body as a tool for violence — driven by the weapon that is your brain — you are armed in a way that is invisible, ever-present, and permanent.

Since no one can tell you know how to kill by just looking at you, people will tend to assume you’re harmless — just the assumption you need to fly under the radar, take advantage of their hesitation and hubris to end the situation in your favor. This aspect has been noted time and again by our female clients who have had to use the information — the assumption that because they are female and unarmed they are helpless and therefore not a threat means the assailant will let his guard down and give the woman opportunities for injury. Opportunities that only the trained would be able to recognize and take full advantage of.

The trained person never has to take time to access the weapon, won’t ever run out of ammo, or be disarmed. Your training is with you, and ready to go, at all times, as is the primary tool to get the job done — your body. Instead of wishing you had a gun, or wishing for the time and opportunity to deploy it, you can hurt the man right now, where ever you are, anytime. In fact, using your training to hurt the man now can buy you the time and opportunity to deploy that tool to finish the job. This has been the biggest positive for law enforcement personnel who’ve gone through our training — the peace of mind that they now have another tool for lethal force, and one that can get them smoothly to the firearm, or work in conjunction with it, in 360˚ instead of just in front of the muzzle.

Once you’re trained you never forget how to hurt people. It becomes a part of you, like swimming. When you know how to swim for your life it’s something that comes back as soon as you hit the water — maybe not as smooth or powerful as you did it back in the day, but more than sufficient to keep your head above water. Likewise, once trained, if someone tries to kill you you’re in your element, you know how to hurt them and take them to nonfunctional. It won’t be pretty, but then, violence never is. I’ve had many clients get in touch with me years after training — so many years I don’t even remember them — with harrowing stories of survival… often without so much as a scratch. They, themselves, were amazed at how obvious and natural the solution to their predicament was — they found they didn’t even have to think about it — they injured the man and it was over.

Lastly, if you like the idea of using a tool — knife, stick or gun — Target Focus Training will greatly enhance your understanding and use of that tool. In the end it’s a total win: you’re never truly ‘unarmed,’ you’re dangerous even when naked, and you’re just that much more effective when you do have that tool in your hand…

Because it’s not your entire world.

Because it’s not your only hope.

Because the trained person is never harmless.