self defense

In personal defense, physical fitness matters

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

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

/ hsoi

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.

– Greg Ellifritz

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

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

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

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

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?

/ hsoi

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

/ hsoi

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:

  1. Pull up to the pump, as far away as I can from the pump
  2. 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

/ hsoi / 9 Comments

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

/ hsoi

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.”

Full story here.

So there you go. New home defense tactic. 😉

 

Violence is still golden

/ hsoi

Some years ago I came across an essay by Jack Donovan called “Violence is Golden”.

Recently, Scott Faith revisited Jack’s essay.

Violence should not be a first resort, but sometimes it is the only resort. I think deep down everyone knows this, but there are those that want to deny it. Or at least, they cannot see themselves performing violence, consider it icky, and thus others shouldn’t partake in it either. But somehow they know that violence is sometimes necessary – without it, laws have no ground, no meaning., and society has no structure. And I think everyone has a line, it’s just a question of finding it. I hear many women that go on about how they could never hurt someone else, but are very willing to get “momma bear” protective if someone tries to hurt their children. There you go, there’s your line. Let’s look at forcible rape (forcible, as opposed to statutory); this is not a time for negotiation, this is a time for violent response because it’s demonstrated that rape victims who fight back fare far better than those who do not. Is there anyone not willing to draw a line here?

Have you ever trained a dog? When training a dog, you have to think like a dog. Dogs don’t understand human, they understand dog. For example, petting a dog is an act of reinforcement. If the dog is doing something and you pet it, the dog says “hey, whatever I’m doing is good, keep doing it”. But to a human, petting can be a comforting behavior. So for example, if your dog is afraid of thunderstorms, many people will pet their dog in an attempt to soothe and comfort the dog. This is bad; that’s human-think, not dog-think. What happens is the petting reinforces to the dog that being afraid of thunderstorms is what to do, and that’s not the behavior we want. To successfully work with a dog, you have to think and speak and act dog. You have to speak their language.

And so it goes with 2-legged predators as well. There are some people out there that only understand the language of violence. They will not listen to your begging, but they will listen to a gun muzzle pointed at them. Which speaks their language? Which will they understand? You cannot apply your standards, your morals, your behaviors and modes of thinking to all people because all people do not and will not think and behave like you – if they did, they wouldn’t be violating you right now, would they? Sometimes you have to speak their language, whether you like it or not. As Faith writes:

Violence should not be, and usually isn’t, the method of first resort in man’s dealings with his fellow man. But you’ve got to talk to people on a level that they understand; sometimes the only language they understand is that of violence. This is especially true when it comes to halting violence after it has already begun. After all, when people cry out for someone to “Do something!” about places like Syria and Iraq they don’t mean send in the State Department or the United Nations; in situations where “reason” fails, you don’t send memos you send the Marines.

What really touched me about Faith’s article was his addressing of the “Coexist” bumper sticker. Every time I see one (usually on a Prius), all I can think to myself is “Great! But I’m not the one you need to be proselytizing to; tell that to the people who are trying to kill me.” Or how wonderful it is to preach that from the safety of our country, behind the laws (force, violence) and law enforcement (police, military — you know, people with guns willing to perform violence by proxy for you). Faith writes:

Coexistence is a wonderful thing, as long as everyone is an equally-committed partner in the process. But if one player in the coexistence game decides to not go along with the program, then you could “coexist” yourself right out of existence. It’s the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma; at every level of human interaction, everyone is better off with cooperation. But the incentives to cheat are such that the fear of defection of others creates incentives to be the first to leave the collective. When it comes to pacifism, anyone declining to at least maintain the capability of violence will be at a distinct disadvantage, and the first to resort to violence will likely be the one left standing at the end of any conflict between them. This is why programs like “Global Zero” will never work; it overlooks a fundamental aspect of human nature. After all, in a society of the blind the one-eyed man in king; and in a society that has beaten all swords into plowshares, everything belongs to the man who kept his sword whole… unless another man with a sword stops him first. Si vis pacem, para violentus.

Faith concludes:

So we need not like violence, but we need to acknowledge the role it plays in securing our lives, liberty, property, and way of life. More than that; we need to embrace it, and stand eternally vigilant to carry it out either individually or collectively if (when) the need arises. There will always be someone who cheats, who defects, who simply doesn’t get with the “ideal world” program. If we don’t prepare for that, we are at the mercy of those who do. And on that note, I think that the best way to end this article is the same way it began, with a quote from Violence is Golden: “It’s time to quit worrying and learn to love the battle axe. History teaches us that if we don’t, someone else will.”

He (and Donovan) are right: we need not like violence, but we need to acknowledge the role it plays. Too often people want to just look at violence as a bad thing and believe that doing away with all violence is the solution and thus the goal to which we must strive. But not everyone will share your lofty goals, and there will be those that see your lofty goals as your weakness and use it against you. And then what will you do? As Donovan wrote:

However, the willful submission of many inevitably creates a vulnerability waiting to be exploited by any one person who shrugs off social and ethical norms. If every man lays down his arms and refuses to pick them up, the first man to pick them up can do whatever he wants. Peace can only be maintained without violence so long as everyone sticks to the bargain, and to maintain peace every single person in every successive generation — even after war is long forgotten — must continue to agree to remain peaceful. Forever and ever. No delinquent or upstart may ever ask, “Or Else What?,” because in a truly non-violent society, the best available answer is “Or else we won’t think you’re a very nice person and we’re not going to share with you.” Our troublemaker is free to reply, “I don’t care. I’ll take what I want.”

Violence is the final answer to the question, “Or else what?”

We cannot have a civilized society without violence. Violence is neither good nor bad; like all things, it’s how people use it that determine it’s merit. Striving to rid the world of violence is laudable, but naive, because how else can you enforce your mandate (as ironic as that would be)? Instead, acknowledge the role violence plays in creating a civilized society, and work to enable good people with the means by which to help maintain that vein of civilization.

She avoided being mugged – Here’s what you can learn from her experience

/ hsoi

Lynn Givens seems to have avoided being mugged, either for her electronics or her prescription drugs (or perhaps both). Lynn shared her experience on Facebook, both recounting the event and numerous learnings points. She’s fine and safe, and we’re thankful for her sharing so we can all learn.

What follows is a copy/paste of Lynn’s posting, which she has encouraged us to share.

I have been asked to repost this AAR to include the lessons I learned. I have done so. Share if you would like to.

Just The Facts Please:

Today, around 12:40 pm, I left Tom at home while I ventured out to Walmart. My intent was to pick up two prescriptions and look at their IPod selection, as mine had died.

I parked halfway out in the parking lot; did not want a dent in the ZBULLET; and entered the store near the pharmacy area. I went directly to the pharmacy area and waited in line. As I picked up my two prescriptions, the cashier informed me that I would need to show my driver’s license for ID, because my script was a controlled substance. I gave her my license and she pulled out a 3 ring binder and logged in my name, script number, DL and date. This transaction was done right there at the check-out register. I was going to pay for it later after I was done shopping.
I then headed back to electronics taking a very convoluted path, browsing at merchandise. In the midway, a young man came up and while standing within about 2 feet of me, started texting. As I tried to walk by him, he engaged me in conversation by saying to me, “that was my mom, she was just checking on me again.” Being polite, I said “that’s nice of her”. I then continued onto electronics.
When I got back there, he was waiting there and kept looking in my direction. I continued to look for the Apple Products and eventually asked a salesgirl for assistance. She showed me where they were, I said thank you, and continued to look at the selection. He walks over and asks me if I ever had an IPod before. I told him yes, mine was broken. He then just loomed around in the area watching me intently. If I moved, he moved. I even left the area, he moved away but showed up again where I was. I then went to the salesgirl and asked to check if they had a particular one, she then left to get it out of some far away place that took about 30 minutes. Meanwhile, the thug watched me and if I moved, he was there again. I finally, took my prescriptions out of my cart, went to another department, struck up a conversation so as to not alarm the sales women. In a discrete manner, I asked for them to call security, that a man has been stalking me in the store for the last 30 minutes and it has become unnerving. She called for security and seconds later, the stalker was within 3 yards of me again. Fortunately, I had worn my sunglasses to the store, so as I was intently watching him over the top of the glasses, he thought I was unaware of him. If I lifted my head up and looked in his direction, he would disappear for a moment behind a display.

Finally a sales person arrived with my IPod. I told him what was going on and that security never showed up. I described the thug, took 3 pictures of him while pretending to text on my phone. The sales person saw him and got all upset. I told him to relax and just ring me up.

He rang up my scripts and IPod and I began to head for front exit by pharmacy. It occurred to me, that there may be some assistants with him. As I reached the front exit, a young man came walking very fast paced, texting someone, and headed to the back of the store. I had already asked the front store clerk to walk me to my car, he said certainly. I gave him the description of the thug and he was headed back in to get a manager.

Arrived home on orange red.

He either wanted the prescriptions or the electronics, or both.
Many lessons here. Most important one for me; having to give DL to pick up controlled substance. Anyone can watch from afar and know what you got. Makes you a huge target. Lesson learned.

HUGE RED FLAG FOR THUGS TO TAKE PRESCRIPTIONS FROM YOUR CART OR GET YOU IN PARKING LOT.

• I was carrying my S&W M&P 9C in a belly band with extra mags and OC.

I owe my seeing the signs early to Tom Givens, Craig Douglas and William Aprill. Each one has taught me something that gave me the ability to see the signs early.

FIRST, he kept showing up close to me from out of nowhere

SECOND, overly friendly, trying to engage me to get my guard down

THIRD, he displayed a lot of grooming behavior, stroking chin, crossing arms, rubbing forehead, pacing, constantly texting as if communicating with a partner

FOURTH, he had on shorts, tank top, flip flops, it was quite cool in the store, but his shirt was soaked under his armpits

FIFTH, he was walking around with nothing in his hands to buy and never stayed at any display to look at something, just followed me and kept disappearing behind displays when he thought I noticed him

SIXTH, don’t count on anyone but yourself and what is physically on your body to handle the situation; I had already moved my purse to my left shoulder and had access to my OC

SEVEN, THERE WAS NO SECURITY THERE TODAY WHEN THIS HAPPENED, NOR DID A MANAGER COME TO MY AID

EIGHT, I knew there could be more than one person and not to go to my car alone

NINE, as leaving the store, I was watching for a accomplice, and wouldn’t you know, as I left, a young man entered the store walking very fast, headed in his direction texting–coincidence–maybe, maybe not

TEN, alertness and awareness are key. I had electricity going all through my body as this unfolded.

ELEVEN, don’t ignore what your body is telling you. Use that sixth sense.

TWELVE, be aware when you are picking up a script that must be signed for. I may as well been walking around with a sign on me that said, get your drugs here.

That’s all for now.
July 5 at 9:13pm • Unlike • 3
•
Lynn Givens Thanks everyone. I post this for others to read and learn. I have had unusual life experiences, this is fourth time in being able to navigate through possible disaster. I hope my experiences will help others to do the same.
•
Lynn Givens I think I am done.

More lessons as I ponder today’s encounter

THIRTEEN, I used the plastic packaging of merchandise to see down the isle where he was avoiding being seen, but he could not see me. I was trying to keep distance between us.

FOURTEEN, I was making a plan of what I was going to do. It did include just leaving the store and giving my basket to the door greeter on the way out.
July 5 at 9:42pm • Like • 2
•
FIFTEEN, ALWAYS PAY FOR SCRIPTS RIGHT AWAY. This way you can take your scripts and leave.
July 5 at 9:43pm • Like • 2
•
Lynn Givens I think I am done.

Wow. A lot to digest.

In fact, because it’s a lot to digest, I recommend you come back and read this a few times. You just read it, come back tomorrow and read it again. Do the same again in the future. You will read, you will ponder, you will digest, and you’ll gain more from revisiting it (no, this isn’t about getting hits to my blog… save it off to your own records to read offline and carry with you, I don’t care — it’s about being able to really learn from this experience, because there’s a great deal in here to learn).

There are a few things I want to point out.

Point 7 – there was no security, and no one came to her aid. Your personal safety is your responsibility.

Points 6, 14 – she was planning, always planning. In fact, I’d say this includes Point 0: already having a gun and OC spray on her person — that was pre-planning. Heck, going even further, getting some training and acknowledging events like this can and will happen to you so you can be prepared and handle them when they unfold; pre-planning.

Be honest. If this happened to you, how would you have taken it? If some guy was being so nice to you, would it have set off any alarm bells? And even if it did, would you have acted on them? or tried to shrug them off (a lot of people do this; see Lynn’s Point 11).

Going back to Point 14, notice Lynn’s willingness to leave everything. So you don’t get your medicine, and it’s going to be a huge hassle to get it again (it’s a controlled substance, going to probably be difficult to get it “reissued”). Whatever. Totally willing to abandon all her shopping, her basket full of stuff, whatever, because her personal safety is more important.

Points… well, just about every other point. The common thread here is awareness. She paid attention and was constantly vigilant.  She used tricks to keep an eye on him (Point 13). She observed out of place behavior (Points 2, 3, 4, 5). She made a fair assumption there would be more than 1 thug (Points 3, 8, 9).

But here’s the bigger point that stands out.

None of this was solved with a gun, or OC spray, or any other sort of weapon or “hard skill”.

It was all solved by being alert, aware, and having prior acknowledgement that bad things can happen to you so you must be prepared ahead of time to handle them. Lynn gives credit to Tom Givens, Craig Douglas (SouthNarc), and William Aprill for giving her the skills she needed to get through that encounter. Yes it was good she had her gun, yes it was good she had OC spray (and it seems she was looking to use the OC as her first line of defense, see Point 6). But the key thing that kept her safe was being able to manage these unknown contacts.

It’s great you want to get your concealed handgun license, but I see so many people that think once they get that, they’re done and good. No, a concealed handgun license is merely your entry ticket into a larger world of personal protection. It’s the minimum entry fee, folks. Yes, you should work on hard skills to become proficient with it, but it’s more important to get these “soft skills”. You should seek out both types of instruction and training.

It’s great you want to carry pepper spray. But have you ever used it? Some people think that buying the canister and putting it on their keychain is done and good to go. But is it really? Are you really able to handle yourself? Will you be able to catch the cues and avoid the situation entirely (the best defense, the art of fighting without fighting… whatever you want to call it), or will it all happen “out of nowhere” and be over before your mind can unfreeze itself and you begin to react?

There’s much to learn from Lynn’s experience, and I’d like to express my gratitude to her for sharing. There’s much to learn here, but you have to swallow your pride and be honest with yourself — your life is worth it.