“When it’s least expected, you’re selected.” –John Farnam
self defense
In personal defense, physical fitness matters – Follow-up
Greg Ellifritz posted on Facebook, coincidentally, the same day I originally wrote about how, in personal defense, physical fitness matters. Greg was sharing an article from Aaron Cowan on the very topic of the importance of physical fitness in personal defense. It’s very much in line with my prior writings on the topic.
In Greg’s Facebook share, my boss-man, Karl Rehn commented:
and examples of armed citizens who lost their fights due to poor physical condition are where, exactly? I’m not saying that getting in shape is a bad idea. Better physical condition has a lot of advantages. But as with a lot of things that we are told “will get us killed on the street”, examples of it actually happening are difficult, if not impossible, to find.
Karl is correct. But I take odds with his stance. Is the lack of examples because we’ve collected data and evidence shows fitness doesn’t matter? or because there’s no data at all? I believe it’s the latter. Use of a gun? that gets put on the police report. But “subject is able to run a 10 minute mile and bench press 200 lbs.” or “subject is an out of shape fat-ass” isn’t on the police report checklist. I assert lack of examples is because there isn’t formal data collection on the topic.
I’ll agree with Karl that we cannot presently prove that “being fat and out of shape will get you killed on the street”. But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the stronger you are, the more “fit” you are, the better chances and more options you have available (and Karl does agree there). Plus, there’s a confidence and mindset factor that cannot be discounted.
Look at the Force Science articles I previously referenced. Is that not some scientific examination of how physical fitness can matter?
How about that store clerk in Houston who, earlier this month, used his semi-pro MMA skills to stop his store from being robbed? Granted his MMA skills contributed, but his physical fitness mattered a great deal as well because, as far as fights go, that was a long fight. Anyone can throw punches for a few intense seconds, but to keep throwing intense punches in a lengthy fight takes a good degree of fitness.
Or let’s bring it back home and look at how many students in our classes struggle because they cannot grip the gun hard enough to adequately manage recoil? Or get tired after an hour of holding a 5 lbs. gun at arms length. Or cannot handle the level of effort to get through a 3-4 hour class, especially in the Texas summer heat?
To me, it all comes back to a question I keep asking and no one has yet answered:
Name me one place – especially in this context of personal safety – where being weak is an advantage.
Granted, Greg, Aaron, myself, we’re biased because we all lift weights and are personally invested in improving our own physical fitness. We see the advantages. Heck, I see how getting fatter has hurt me in this realm, and am presently dedicated to getting off this fat-wagon. Yeah, maybe there’s no demonstrable proof that being fit and strong “will get you killed”. But to me, it’s more that being fit and strong is rarely going to be a disadvantage, and will do a lot to give you an edge. We always emphasize how you should take and make every advantage possible to maximize your ability to survive and win.
Again, I’ll leave you with something Mark Rippetoe said:
Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general.
In personal defense, physical fitness matters
Seeing thousands of students a year in classes, one thing is clear.
Most people are out of shape. Yeah, a lot are too fat for their own good, but it’s also simple physical fitness. I see people having a hard time getting into and out of kneeling positions or getting winded just hauling their gear from the parking lot to the range. This isn’t good people.
I know. Harsh for me to say, especially about students. But the realities of personal defense tend to be pretty stark and serious, so sometimes you have to hear things you may not want to hear.
I was reading Force Science News issue 262. There was a discussion of a study done in Norway about physical fitness of police officers and the impact it had upon the physical control of suspects during arrest.
“The results of the physical capability tests are remarkable,” he told Force Science News. “These were the averages among the study subjects: bench press–235 pounds; chin-ups–15; long jump–8 feet 4 inches; time for the roughly two-mile run–11 minutes 53 seconds. The average participating officer weighed 181 pounds and stood just under 6 feet.
“In all likelihood, fewer than 10 per cent of officers upon graduating from any academy in North America would be able to match these performance standards. And from a fitness standpoint, that is when officers tend to be at their absolute peak.
“In one survey of 226 US officers with time on the job, only a minority felt they could ‘very well’ perform such relatively simple tasks as completing 21 push-ups, negotiating an agility obstacle course, performing 36 sit-ups, sitting and reaching 16 ? inches, and bench pressing their own body weight. And these tests are far less demanding that what the researchers in Norway used.
“In the study of physical exhaustion conducted by the Force Science Institute a few years ago, we found that the average officer’s pulse rate hit 180 beats per minute within 20 seconds of all-out exertion, such as would be experienced in a struggle with a resistant suspect. That represents a dramatic stressing of an officer’s physical system and capabilities.” For more about this study, go to:www.forcescience.org/fsnews/176.html .
Lewinski suggests that officers reading about the Norwegian study measure their own ability against the physical capabilities tests those researchers used, as cited earlier in this article. “The message for many officers,” he says, “will be: ‘Get to a gym! Do it now! Don’t wait!’ “
Yes, this is regarding law enforcement, and the nature of their job often requires physical contact and “wrestling” with a non-compliant subject. But it still has implications for the private citizen when it comes to your own personal defense.
How about the ability to run away? That’s certainly a great defensive tactic, but can you run? And if you can, how fast and how far can you get? Will your attacker(s) be able to catch you?
What if you had to climb over something, like a fence? Could you do it?
And what if you wound up in a physical struggle? Could you give your attacker at least some challenge? Or will you be a rag doll under their fists and boots?
Heck, if you get knocked to the ground, could you quickly and decisively get back to your feet?
I know these don’t seem like very challenging things, but I see far too many people who cannot do these things when there’s no pressure. You will not rise to the occasion and suddenly gain the skills of Brock Lesnar or Usain Bolt. This isn’t to say you have to be at their level, but I’m certainly you can be better than you are today.
Funny thing. The same day I wrote this article, Greg Ellifritz posted a similar such article to his Facebook page (must be something in the air for us all to be writing from the same point of reference about the same topic!). I’ll address Greg’s posting in an upcoming article.
Until then, I’ll leave you with something Mark Rippetoe said:
Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general.
You have to create a larger disparity of force
A motivated attacker isn’t going to be deterred by anything less than using more force against him than he is willing to experience. Rape whistles, yelling the word “no”, or racking a pump shotgun WILL NOT deter a motivated attacker. For that job, ruthless violence is the only solution.
Emphasis added.
Force disparity matters. And really, when it comes time for you to defend your life, you want the long-end of the stick. As Greg discusses, it’s what works.
Unarmed ≠ Undangerous
Unarmed does not equal undangerous. Just ask Christy Mack.
I’d like to end the posting there, but I know if I do there’s going to be someone that reads more into it than the simple statement, and will make assumptions about how I stand on some current events.
The intent of my statement is simply an attempt to dispel the notion that just because someone is “unarmed” means they aren’t dangerous, or that particular responses to an unarmed threat are somehow unjustified because you don’t view them as equal responses (e.g. one is unarmed, the other is armed).
I don’t know the entirety of the Christy Mack and “War Machine” story; at this point there’s a lot of he-said-she-said going on, and the truth will eventually come out. I am not taking sides, nor do I have any dog in this fight. What appears undeniable is War Machine beat Christy with his bare hands resulting in 18 broken bones around her eyes, nose broken in 2 places, missing front teeth with several more broken, she couldn’t chew or see out of her left eye, fractured rib, severely ruptured liver from a kick to her side. She can’t walk from her leg injuries. (citation, including hospital pictures of her injuries).
Can you honestly say that an unarmed person can’t be dangerous and inflict grievous bodily harm?
Some may say this is exceptional because War Machine is a trained MMA fighter. Doesn’t matter. If someone comes up to me on the street with intent to do harm, am I supposed to ask them first “Excuse me, are you an MMA-fighter? Because I have to factor that into my response.” Regardless, there are countless stories of people getting sucker punched on the street, they fall and crack their head on the pavement and wind up brain damaged, in a coma, and/or dead. No special training on the assailant’s part; all they were was “unarmed” but still dangerous.
Please don’t read any deeper into my statement than the words themselves present. I’m not trying to make political commentary nor take a stance on any of the current events; do not assume what my stance is and put words into my mouth. My statement today is only to show how an unarmed person can cause grievous bodily harm, and say that we as a society need to move away from this false pretense that “unarmed = undangerous”.
(And yes I know… “undangerous” is not a word. Some poetic license, please. Actually, I just looked it up and it seems Doc Webster says it is.)
It takes time to process and react
It’s common when people hear about (police) shootings to wonder why the person kept shooting — because obviously the attacker was no longer a threat (in the eyes of the armchair examiner). This often comes up in the context of “being shot in the back”.
In Force Science Institute #260, there was a presentation titled “Can cops really avoid ‘extra’ shots? A realistic research review.” The premise:
A flashpoint of controversy in some officer-involved shootings is when officers do not immediately cease fire the moment a deadly threat ends and they are no longer in mortal danger.
An officer’s ability to instantly stop pulling the trigger once a “stop shooting” signal becomes evident is not always considered. Instead, the officer behind the gun may face harsh media criticism and daunting legal action alleging deliberate excessive force for firing “unnecessary” extra rounds.
While it may be understandable to cry out in this manner, it tends to ignore the reality of the fact we are human and things take time.
Numerous tests were run to look at things like reaction times. A simple reaction time test? Ranged from 0.17 to 0.5 seconds to react to a stimulus, averaging about 0.25. While that doesn’t seem like much time, it’s still time.
Another test had officers shooting as fast as possible and when given a signal were to stop shooting. How many rounds were fired after the signal? from 0 to 6, with an average of about 2 rounds.
A third test changed the signal from a simple stimulus to one that required perceiving the stimulus, deciphering it, making a decision, then proceeding if the signal was the proper one. This increased complexity caused average reaction time to increase to 0.56 seconds. Remember: that’s average, which means some people were faster and some were slower.
In the end, what is demonstrated by these and other performed tests was that time is involved. A stimulus happens, you must perceive it, process it, decide what to do, then react to it (OODA loop), and that takes time. Think about what we (should have) learned in driving school about maintaining a safe stopping distance. Part of why we maintain a safe driving distance is to account for the time it takes to run through the OODA loop. Something external happens, and what we do in regard to that external thing does not happen immediately: it will take time for us to react, and during that time things continue to happen be it your car continues to hurtle forward or a person continues to shoot.
For further reading on this topic, here’s an article from Greg Ellifritz about how it can happen that someone can be shot in the back.
This is not to say people WANT to shoot more than they need to, that people WANT to shoot someone in the back, that “extra shots” are always excusible under the above logic, or any such thing. It just must be understood that there are legitimate and explainable reasons why things like this CAN happen.
Austin purse snatchings – What can we learn?
Some women around Austin have become victims of purse snatching.
Full story. Alas, cannot link the video, but it’s important to watch so we can learn… so yes, click through. (h/t Julianna Crowder)
Seems they are driving around, see a woman and a proper environment (e.g. alone, no one else around), pull over, run up to hear, rip her purse off, then jump in the car and take off.
What can we learn?
Awareness
Honestly, I’m not sure if “awareness” would have helped here. Everything unfolded quickly, and unless you were jumpy about everything around you, the sounds were normal sounds of the city: a car stopping at an intersection, running footsteps (lots of joggers in this town).
We have to realize, no matter how much training and education we have, while that certainly helps us fare better, it doesn’t make us invulnerable. Shit still happens. So when it does, what can you do in response?
Fight Back
I cannot blame the woman for her reaction: purse came off, she started to fight for her purse via a tug-of-war. It’s a natural reaction, but one she was destined to lose. It doesn’t matter how much you are pro-feminism, pro-women’s rights, etc.,the laws of nature are pretty clear: males are (designed to be) stronger than females, and in a test of strength like a tug-of-war, the man is likely to win.
So what I wonder is, what could the outcome have been like if the victim had a different mindset? Instead of trying to retain her purse by tugging on it, she went on the offensive and tried to retain her purse by attacking the snatcher?
Granted, it might lead back to my first problem of the reality differences between males and females, and she could have gotten hurt more. But if studies have shown that fighting back dramatically increases the likelihood of stopping a rape attack, I think it’s fair to extrapolate that fighting back betters your chances of not being a victim in general. Criminals don’t want a fight, they want a payday.
Another thought is if there was enough struggle, the attacker’s accomplice in the car might jump out and join the attack. No telling what might unfold. This is where weapons help, because multiple attackers is force disparity, and weapons are a force equalizer.
Preparation
About a month ago, Greg Ellifritz provided some commentary on a purse snatching in Houston.
– What could you do to prevent the attack in the first place? How do you hold your purse so that access to potential thieves is limited? How close do you allow people to get in public spaces? Is that distance different for men than it is for women? If so, why?
I don’t carry a purse, so my advice may be of minimal value. But I have played the role of a purse snatcher in force on force training sessions in the women’s self defense classes I teach. I’ve found that purses held under the arm (like a football) are the hardest for me to take. I would strongly advise women to carry their purses in this manner to reduce theft attempts. I don’t like having the strap wrapped around the woman’s body or neck. The strap may cause injury if the woman is dragged by the attacker, especially if the attacker is in a vehicle like she was here.
It appears in this video the purse was over her same-side shoulder. What if she had the purse across her body (e.g. purse on the left side but strap over the right shoulder)? Granted there’s what Greg said, but certainly such a carry method makes it harder to obtain a purse. Would the attackers have driven on and looked for another (easier) victim? Hard to say, but I do wonder.
As well, she was walking alone. Why? Sometimes it’s unavoidable, but what could she have done to prepare? Could she have kept a canister of OC spray in her right hand, ready for immediate deployment?
Consider the contents of your purse. Since it’s something that could get stolen, are there contents that you may not want to keep in there because they are too precious to lose if stolen? Can your contents be replaced? This is one reason people discourage carrying a gun in your purse, because purses are traditionally such ripe targets for theft – and now they have your wallet, and your gun. Not just the “gee, now there’s another gun for criminals to have and use” but also it means you cannot access yours while in-fight. Same goes for kubatons or OC spray or any other weapon – in your purse isn’t useful to you, once you lose control over your purse.
What did you see?
What did you see in the video? What were your learning points?
Please share in the comments.
They don’t think like us
A 78-year old man was pumping gas, when 2 thugs approached him, knocked him out, and robbed him. Watch the video, it’s key to understanding this event.
Video and full story here. (h/t M.D.T.S.)
Here’s what stands out to me from this video.
They don’t think like us
The big thing that stood out to me was the mindset of the criminal.
They don’t think like us.
They don’t think like normal members of society. These two scumbags had no reserves about walking up to an elderly man, punching him, letting him fall to the ground (concussion, and yes falls can kill a person, especially an elderly person), rummage through his pants for whatever the might find, then leave him – bleeding – on the ground.
All they cared about was a quick score, and they were willing to do it at any cost.
I know you could never do something like this. I’m pretty sure you are appalled by this behavior.
Given that, it’s important to realize we cannot apply our same standards to people like this and expect them to comply. Reasoning does not work. Laws do not stop them. More laws will not stop them either. If you want to stop a criminal, you have to speak their language, and the law isn’t it.
Awareness
I’m not going to claim to be the ultimate tactical guru that’s got his head on a swivel and is always in “code yellow” – because I’m human, and it is impossible to always be in code yellow (gotta sleep sometime, right?). Nevertheless, there are times when we need to make an effort to ensure we stay mindful of our surroundings, such as 4:30 AM at a gas station.
It’s unfortunate the victim had his back turned for so long. He never looked up from what he was doing, never kept his eyes open to see what was going on around him. This may not have prevented the attack, given there were multiple attackers and they obviously had planned to flank him then come up and surround him, blocking him in.
Keep looking at what you are doing. You’ve pumped gas a million times, you know what’s going on and probably could do it with your eyes closed. Given that, divert your eyes and attention elsewhere. Do you really need to stare at the gas cap while you screw it in? Or can you use your eyes to ensure the cap is seated, then look up and around to keep your attention on other things while your hands blindly screw the cap in?
It’s hard. We all get task fixation. We all let our guard down. But look for opportunities to break your fixation (SCAN! SCAN! SCAN!).
No Escape
I’ve started to make it a habit that when I pump gas to:
- Pull up to the pump, as far away as I can from the pump
- Minimize time between the car and the pump
When I pull up to the pump, of course you have to come close to the pump, but you don’t have to kiss it. Yes, you have to gauge the hose length, room on the other side (for someone using the next pump over), and other such measures. But the key is, the more room you can have between you and the pump, the more room you have to move, if you have to move.
The thing is, the pump is a wall, your car is a wall. Now there are only two ways in or out (or worse, leaving your car door open like this gentleman did, and now you have 3 walls and only 1 escape route). In this situation, the attackers knew this, with one closing in from the front, and the other from the rear. The guy in front was the initiator, the distraction, and the guy in the rear was the heavy that did the dirty work. Yeah, it seems they had a plan and had experience (and success) in doing this before. They weren’t stupid.
Make sure to give yourself an escape. Don’t fence yourself in between your car and the pump. Yes, you will have to to some extent because you have to get in and out of the car, you have to work with the pump, but just keep it short. While pumping, flip up the little gizmo that keeps the pump going automatically, then walk out of the area. Use it as time to walk around your car and look at your car (a useful maintenance tip; maybe you’ll see something that needs fixing or that your tires need air), but don’t just focus on your car – use it as time to get a good look all around the area. So many people focus their eyes and attention on the pumping – don’t; focus on everything around you. When the pump clicks off, finish your work quickly and get back in the car – don’t linger and tend to things. You can’t avoid being in this “funnel”, so just keep the time minimal.
A Gun
No, I don’t think a gun would have helped the victim here. What would have helped would have been skills to avoid the confrontation in the first place. I always go back to SouthNarc’s (Shivworks) “Managing Unknown Contacts” (MUC) skills, because Craig’s stuff is some of the best for dealing with this sort of thing and avoiding trouble before it starts.
The way a gun might have helped is that often when someone chooses to carry a gun, they also choose to have a different mindset about themselves. They tend to be someone more aware of crime and the possibility they could be a victim. They tend to be people that pay more attention to what goes on around them. And if this situation went far enough south, well… realize that a muzzle pointed at you speaks a language criminals understand.
But on the subject of guns, I did note the fact this happened in California – a very restrictive state when it comes to guns, at least for law-abiding citizens. It’s quite obvious from the video of the armed-robbery that those who don’t care about the law don’t care about the law, including gun laws.
Laws should enable good people to live their lives. Alas, gun-control laws rarely work out to enable good people; they tend to only embolden and enable bad people.
What do you see?
When you watch the video, what did you see? What is something we can learn from this?
Please share in the comments.
Not the odds, but the stakes
Wil Lewis escaped poverty in Guatemala when he was adopted at age 7. Loving parents raised him in Wisconsin, where he found his two passions: photography and the woman who would become his wife.
He attended art school in Milwaukee and moved to Chicago two years ago. He was looking forward to starting a new job Monday, finally ending the rat race of freelance photography.
Lewis, 28, and his wife moved into a new Rogers Park apartment just two weeks ago. They were thinking about starting a family.
On Saturday, gunfire upended their plans. Lewis was standing in the 1300 block of West Devon Avenue about 3:20 p.m. when a gunman approached on foot and shot him in the back, Chicago Police said. He was pronounced dead less than 40 minutes later.
“He was looking to start a family. He was talking about having children,” said Warren Rader, a close friend and fellow photographer. “Everything was going right for him.”
Full story here. (h/t Mike Cox)
A young man, who overcame so much, his life was opening up and looking so incredible — so much ahead. And senselessly killed in what appears to be a gang battle; an innocent man caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here’s the crazy thing:
Rader recalled a conversation he had with his friend in Milwaukee a year or two ago, before Lewis moved to Chicago.
“We were talking about conceal-carry gun licenses and how much nonsense it was and how unlikely it was that you’d ever get into a confrontation . . . He just thought it wasn’t something an everyday person would have to deal with,” Rader said.
It is true. The odds of getting into a confrontation aren’t high, especially if you live your life by a simple set of rules, e.g. don’t go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things, and be in bed by 10pm (h/t John Farnam). But even then, as Lewis’ tragic story shows, you can try to do everything right, and yet tragic things can still happen.
It’s important to realize…
It’s not about the odds.
It’s about the stakes.
New home defense tactic
A burglar in Georgetown ran away with empty hands and an eyeful Wednesday night when he was confronted by a nude, pistol-packing homeowner.
[…]
“I have a tattoo of the grim reaper, my hair is sticking up all crazy and I’m naked,” said the homeowner, who asked that his name be withheld for safety reasons. “I’m not sure if (the burglar) was more afraid of me or the gun.”
So there you go. New home defense tactic. 😉
Stuff From Hsoi 