If you have to defend yourself, typically that means you are reacting.

That means you are behind the curve.

You have to perceive what’s going on, process what’s going on, figure out what to do, and then do it. That takes time. At best it may take only a second or two, but that’s still time. Every second can be critical.

I saw this posting at Fark about an F1 driver and his reflexes.

Here’s the video:

Watch how quickly things unfold, how quickly he reacts, and how quickly everything could have gone south. Of course, this is why he’s Dino Zamparelli and one of the top F1 drivers — and you’re not.

In the Fark discussion thread, Farker sat1va wrote:

That was pretty damn great. I left collision reconstruction about 4 years ago but the latest on perception-response when I last applied it was anywhere from 1.0 to 2.5 seconds depending upon the circumstances. Perception-response is the time it takes to identify a hazard, decide upon a reaction, and execute the reaction with your body. The circumstances make all the difference for this time and removing any element such as knowing you just need to brake or push a button will lower that time. For example if you’re driving in heavy city traffic (lots of visual noise) through a green light intersection and a vehicle enters from your left (unexpected hazard approaching from a high eccentricity) you’ll tend to have closer to the 2.5 second perception reaction time before you begin to steer or brake. On the flip side if you’re bombing down a sparsely populated rural tertiary highway (low visual noise) and an oncoming vehicle crosses the centre-line (low eccentricity) you’ll probably be closer to 1.0-1.5 secs. Clearly this driver was on his toes driving down the wet low visibility track, and we don’t know if he was fed any information on a yellow flag up ahead, but either way his reaction time was either spectacular or had a dash of fluke in it.

So consider that: 1.0 to 2.5 seconds to react. Look at all that unfolded within a second or two in that video. Look at how much can happen in such a short period of time. Consider in this racing context it’s a pretty controlled context and there’s a small set of possible situations and responses to have to deal with, so you can trim down your reaction time.

Now back out to a violent attack. How many variables could we have to deal with? How much will our brain have to flip through a mental rolodex to find what to do? And will it find anything?  Considering the greater number of possible situations and then possible reactions (because “shooting him” isn’t going to be and can’t be the only answer), consider then how this affects your reaction time. Chances are, your reaction is going to be slow. Yes every situation is different, and yes people are different. But let’s just back up and look at the general concepts and its a fairly good risk of being slow.

This is where force-on-force training can be useful, because your brain can find a problem and solution to an already experienced event, instead of now having to invent one on the fly. You get put into real and typical scenarios, you then reacted. Maybe you did it wrong or did it right, but either way after the scenario is done, there’s a briefing to discuss, and you will ingrain the lessons. The more FoF you do, the more you’ll learn. The more you’ll come up with game plans, and then you can just act instead of having to wing it.

It’s also why formal training with reputable schools is important. These are people that have studied what it takes to stay alive in a deadly force confrontation. They have worked for formalize methods of teaching so they can imbue reactions in their students that are appropriate. For example, when we get into classes like Defensive Pistol Skills 1, we don’t just tell you to “draw” or “shoot” or “fire”. We yell “GUN!!!!!” as your indicator for when you should be drawing your gun and shooting. Why? It’s attempting to replicate what your brain is going to be saying. Some dude pulls a gun on you and you’re not going to ask him out for tea! No, your brain is going to be going “HOLY SHIT! HE’S GOT A GUN!!! GUN!! GUN!!!”, so it’s about ingraining that reaction to that stimulus.  And then, your reaction times can decrease because you don’t lock up wondering what to do next, you can get to action.

I don’t know how much credence to put into sat1va’s numbers, but the principle remains. Shit happens, we’re behind the curve, and it takes time for us to perceive, process, devise a plan, and execute the plan (OODA loop). Anything you can do to tighten up your OODA loop works in your favor.

Take a look at this dashcam footage of a guy pulling out a knife and attacking a deputy during a traffic stop.

There’s much we can learn from this.

First, take a read of PoliceOne’s examination of the footage (and another video of it). (h/t Karl)

Situational awareness. The Deputy was aware of his situation, tho it’s arguable he could have been better aware. I’m guessing the assailant was walking down the road towards the traffic stop, out of view of the dashcam. Then… out of nowhere he goes crazy, pulls the knife, and attacks. It was good that 1. the assailant hesitated (suicide by cop? act of a crazed loon?), 2. the Deputy did see him when he did. You can see how quickly things unfold, how quickly things can go south and the flag can fly. We aren’t supermen… we will fall into “condition white”, we will fail at being situationally aware. We’re human. We can only strive to do our best.

The Deputy moved. It’s better to not get shot (or stabbed) than it is to shoot. As soon as the Deputy registered what was going on (as soon as his OODA loop kicked in on this), he moved. He “got off the X”. While going backwards is not ideal, it’s all he could do with a car on his right and unknown traffic to his left. That was good situational awareness — he knew where he had to go, and went there. Moving bought him time, time enough to draw his gun.

3 yards, 3 seconds, 1 shot. So, lower than the statistical average by 2 shots, but still… there’s your average.

What was this guy’s motive? Who knows… and who cares. Well, in the aftermath we care as the legal system does what it needs to do. But in the moment? Who cares. It doesn’t matter WHY someone is attacking you, just that they are attacking you and you need to get them to stop. Don’t worry about the why… worry about keeping yourself alive and stopping the attack, so you can be around later to ask why.

The Deputy shot “right”. That is, he shot to stop the assailant. No “shoot to kill”. He shot, the attack stopped, that was it.

For those that wish to ban guns or look down on guns for self-defense, I ask you what you would do in this situation. I reckon the attacker had something against police, given the history the videos tell us. But so what? Maybe the attacker will have something against women… or against blacks… or against gays… or against you just because you look funny. Or maybe they’ll have no rational reason at all, which seems possible given this video. So someone gets up close to you, pulls a knife, and lunges at you. What are you going to do? If you think violence is wrong, then you’re dead. If you think fighting back is wrong, then you’re dead. If you think shouting “NO!” is going to make him stop, then you’re dead…. because if I’m close enough to palm strike him in the nose, he’s close enough to stab me. Sometimes violence is the right answer (it took me years to accept that). Sometimes a gun is the right technological solution — it overcomes distance, which is my friend when being attacked by someone with a knife; it gets people to stop doing what they’re doing, which is attacking me.

There’s a lot we can learn from this video. Watch it over and over. Learn what you can.